Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Bubbles on September 14, 2015, 10:00:56 AM
-
.
-
Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and pOwer
Do you have any evidence for this, Rose. I notice that you rely on ideas in your OP that have absolutely no relation to Jesus' original teachings, nor to the position of the Christian Church for the first 300+ years of its existence.
-
I'm not sure this is any different from any other formalised religion. Religious ideas are about trying to explain the world in the absence of sufficient information, but the formalisation of them is about people trying to build social cohesion - that's a form of control.
Some of them are more blatant about the control element than others, some non-religious ideas do the same thing - superstitions, institutionalised racism, traditions etc.
I don't think Christianity stands out amongst the other religious movements in this regard - whilst there have been some quite egregious examples of it, there have also been Christian movements that were quite accepting of other ideas as well.
O.
-
These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.
ippy
-
These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.
Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?
-
Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?
Certainly not atheism. You know all that that entails, or at least should do.
-
These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.
Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?
In theory, perhaps, though I think some would be more difficult to leverage than others.
Atheism would be as difficult as theism - it's a single point, which means it lacks the breadth and subtlety to exert control.
Taking it further - from theism to a full-fledged explicit religion - makes it easier to encroach in more areas of life. How you'd do that with atheism I'm not sure.
Secularism could be seen as a form of control - the denial of public space for religious views - but it's as much a compromise between equally intransigent control-mechanisms as anything.
Ultimately, any 'rules' - be they legal, social, traditional, whatever - are an attempt at control. The art, I suppose, is to pick the least intrusive - I'd suggest that secularism is way less intrusive than giving authority to any one religious movement over others.
O.
-
Certainly not atheism. You know all that that entails, or at least should do.
Atheism is a world view, in the same way as theism, Shaker. If one is a means of social control, surely the other is too. It certainly was in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, and other such places.
-
These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.
Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?
Sorry, additionally - they aren't 'only' a means to social control, indeed that's probably not the intention of very many of them at all, initially.
Individual rules and tropes within them may be generated with that in mind, but in principle they are exactly what they say they are: theism is, merely, accepting the premise there is at least one god. After that you build rules and regulations by accepting or rejecting particular claims people have about what they think given gods might want, and those rules become social constraints - that's not the point, it's the consequence.
O.
-
Atheism is a world view, in the same way as theism, Shaker.
No it isn't.
Atheism is a conclusion.
Naturalism is a worldview.
Scepticism is a worldview.
Rationalism is a worldview.
These tend, on the whole, to go hand in hand with atheism, and generally speaking where you find the latter you'll find at least one, some or all of the former, but atheism itself isn't a worldview. It's a stance on the existence of gods which is based on some other thing which is a worldview.
If one is a means of social control, surely the other is too.
That doesn't actually follow. I can explain why, if needed.
-
Just to note I don't think theism is a world view either.
-
A lot of Christians of the 'born again' ilk seem to think getting into heaven when they kick the bucket is more important than leading a good life down here! That would explain why some of them behave in such a ghastly way!
-
Atheism is a world view, in the same way as theism, Shaker.
No it isn't.
You would seem to be at odds with the Oxford Dictionary:
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
the Free Dictionary:
world·view
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
Merriam-Webster:
worldview
the way someone thinks about the world
Wikipedia
A comprehensive world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). The German word is also in use in English.
It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.
-
Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?
-
Thanks for defining the term 'worldview,' whose meaning I already understood.
Now go back and read my prior post again and try to understand why you've spectacularly missed the point.
-
A lot of Christians of the 'born again' ilk seem to think getting into heaven when they kick the bucket is more important than leading a good life down here! That would explain why some of them behave in such a ghastly way!
I have yet to meet any Christians of the 'born-again' ilk who think that way, Floo, and I know a fair number.
-
Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?
NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either. I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.
-
A lot of Christians of the 'born again' ilk seem to think getting into heaven when they kick the bucket is more important than leading a good life down here! That would explain why some of them behave in such a ghastly way!
I have yet to meet any Christians of the 'born-again' ilk who think that way, Floo, and I know a fair number.
So do I unfortunately! :o
-
Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?
NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either. I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.
Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.
the Free Dictionary:
world·view
1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
It isn't the overall perspective from which one can see or interpret the world
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
It by defition is not only not a set of beliefs, but isn't even a belief. It's a lack of a belief
Merriam-Webster:
worldview
the way someone thinks about the world
It isn't the way anyone thinks about the world
Wikipedia
A comprehensive world view or worldview is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics. The term is a calque of the German word Weltanschauung composed of Welt ('world') and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook'). The German word is also in use in English.
It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.
And again it is a simple lack of 1 belief - it in no sense can be comprehensive.
Theism while at least manging to be a belief isn't comprehensive unless you add on multiple other beliefs.
-
I've created a thread for this.
-
Thanks for defining the term 'worldview,' whose meaning I already understood.
Now go back and read my prior post again and try to understand why you've spectacularly missed the point.
I've missed the point, I accept; that point being that you and others will make every effort to avoid allowing your understanding of the world to be deemed as anything other than a conclusion; a conclusion on which you base your understanding of the world.
You mentioned that you believe naturalism to be a world view. That it might be, but then I can argue that I believe in naturalism but not as the sole arbiter or reality. I have therefore come to a different conclusion to you regarding the nature of naturalism - suggesting that naturalism isn't the underlying element but a means of reaching that element.
-
I've missed the point, I accept; that point being that you and others will make every effort to avoid allowing your understanding of the world to be deemed as anything other than a conclusion; a conclusion on which you base your understanding of the world.
The conclusion of atheism follows from the worldviews of naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc., not - as you seem to be arguing - vice versa. Naturalism (and the rest) is the worldview; atheism inevitably falls out of that worldview. My understanding of the world is predicated on naturalism (and the rest), not the atheism which is a consequence of it.
You mentioned that you believe naturalism to be a world view. That it might be
Is.
but then I can argue that I believe in naturalism but not as the sole arbiter or reality.
So therefore your worldview incorporates supernaturalism as well, and can't be considered wholly naturalistic.
I have therefore come to a different conclusion to you regarding the nature of naturalism - suggesting that naturalism isn't the underlying element but a means of reaching that element.
No. See first response above.
-
Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.
Yes it is, NS. It's conception of the world is as being without a deity.
It isn't the overall perspective from which one can see or interpret the world
Yet that seems to be the central element of how an atheist interprets the world - as running without the intervention of a deity.
It by defition is not only not a set of beliefs, but isn't even a belief. It's a lack of a belief
A neat semantic trick, but as there is a lack of belief in a deity, there is a belief in some other form of dynamic for life.
It isn't the way anyone thinks about the world
Not according to many posts here which seem to suggest that reality (aka the world) is not reliant on a deity to exist
-
Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.
Yes it is, NS. It's conception of the world is as being without a deity.
Wrong. Again. Do you actually read what people say?
-
The conclusion of atheism follows from the worldviews of naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc., not - as you seem to be arguing - vice versa. Naturalism (and the rest) is the worldview; atheism inevitably falls out of that worldview. My understanding of the world is predicated on naturalism (and the rest), not the atheism which is a consequence of it.
Yet there are many - scientists amongst them - who regard "naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc." as legitimate but still don't come to the conclusion that you do, suggesting that these are not core understandings but means to a core understanding.
-
Wrong. Again. Do you actually read what people say?
Yes, I do read what people say, Andy. It is why I have challenged this belief on some people's part that atheism isn't a belief system/world view/whatever for more years than I care to remember.
-
The problem with the idea that being an atheist is a conception of the world is that that means I have an infinite amount of worldviews. My aunicornism is a conception of the world by that definition. This makes it meaningless.
As for saying a lack of belief is a semantic trick as regards belief (a) the definition talked about a set of beliefs which it clearly is not and (b) you seem to have got confused into thinking that I do not have a belief in a God and I have a belief there is no God are equivalent. They are not.
-
Wrong. Again. Do you actually read what people say?
Yes, I do read what people say, Andy. It is why I have challenged this belief on some people's part that atheism isn't a belief system/world view/whatever for more years than I care to remember.
Wrongly. As Shaker has already noted atheism may be a conclusion from other world views, but it doesn't constitute one. I have more in common with Gonnagle's world view than Dawkins.
-
Wrong. Again. Do you actually read what people say?
Yes, I do read what people say, Andy. It is why I have challenged this belief on some people's part that atheism isn't a belief system/world view/whatever for more years than I care to remember.
Ok, so you read them then, then completely ignore them and go on to misrepresent them. If, after all the years, you still can't understand the difference between a tentative position of non-belief and an assertive position of belief, then you're a waste of conversation.
-
Further as I have often posted, I am sceptical about anyone having a coherent and consistent world view. I think we have a hodge podgy of views bundled up in rough heuristics which are then subject to the desires of our lizard brain. That a lack of belief in something could be held to be a world view is quite simply laughable since it leads to the idea that we have infinite world views.
-
The conclusion of atheism follows from the worldviews of naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc., not - as you seem to be arguing - vice versa. Naturalism (and the rest) is the worldview; atheism inevitably falls out of that worldview. My understanding of the world is predicated on naturalism (and the rest), not the atheism which is a consequence of it.
Yet there are many - scientists amongst them - who regard "naturalism/materialism/physicalism/scepticism/rationalism etc. etc. etc." as legitimate but still don't come to the conclusion that you do, suggesting that these are not core understandings but means to a core understanding.
You do realise that this is precisely an argument against atheism being a world view, don't you? If both Shaker and these theists believe in materialism then atheism/theism are not world views.
-
I also find it odd that anyone would suggest that espousing a philosophy or set of beliefs would automatically lead them to the same conclusions as anyone else espousing them - surely this is observable untrue even amongst those who claim fully fledged philosophies? Indeed it is that fact which makes me doubt the real usefulness of the term world view which I suspect is hugely more complex and contradictory for each individual than any ism.
-
These religions there all equally daft, could have sworn I saw Elvis the other day.
Aren't all worldviews, including those underpinning secularism and atheism simply means to social control, then?
Afraid of losing the religious cop out cards, like, losing special privileges because of your beliefs, losing legally sanctioned ability to discriminate within our UK schools systems, being relegated to a level playing field, things like no more of a say or any less of a say than everybody else, afraid of faith/religion being put into the private sphere? (Where it belongs).
I suppose making religions, people of faith, neither having any more or any less of a say than everybody else, a level playing field, would make religious people feel as though they are being controlled, compared to the privileges they enjoy at present.
ippy
-
Wrong. Again. Do you actually read what people say?
Yes, I do read what people say, Andy. It is why I have challenged this belief on some people's part that atheism isn't a belief system/world view/whatever for more years than I care to remember.
I have to say, Hope, I'm afraid I agree with the others on this one, I don't see that atheism is a 'world-view' - it's too limited in scope and effect. Likewise I think theism is too limited to be a world-view, it's a singular position on a singular issue.
It's an important component in a world-view, certainly, it's an intrinsic part in some world-views even, but I can't see how it can be a world view on its own.
Christianity could be considered a world-view, especially if it were narrowed down to a particular sect, but theism spans from the KKK through Catholicism and the Quakers to Wahhabism, Hinduism and (arguably, perhaps) Shinto. Those are all theistic world-views, but that doesn't make theism a world-view.
O.
-
Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and pOwer
Which is why there has always been room for atrocities.
Of course for some Christians it will always be about "love" and " the Good Samaritan " but often with organised religion it isn't.
Which is why it is so important to believe ridiculous things and not question the validity of it.
Lean not to your own understanding, as it says in Christianity, well of course not, if you applied humanitarianism to things, a lot of bad things in history would never have happened. It would have burst the bubble of those who were power hungry.
As Voltaire once said
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire
This could also be aimed at Islam.
Too few people take a "stand of conscience" against organised religions or those with religious ambition for power.
Or even disorganised religions come to that.
Injustices exist because people allow it to.
Religion of various sorts, is often at the forefront of injustice.
A lot of the time it becomes the justification for it.
:(
If religions were really about good vs evil and standing up against injustice in the world ,and defending the vunerable, the world would have been a much better and nicer place.
Yes am having a cynical day today >:(
Till you see the truth for what it is,.. you will remain cynical and wrong, Rose.
Religion is not to blame for the evil men do.
Men do evil in the absence of religion.
Christ did not evil and if we loved God and our neighbour as ourselves the world would hold no evil.
-
Till you see the truth for what it is,.. you will remain cynical and wrong, Rose.
The Oracle has spoken! It's a pity for you, Sass, that you have no idea of the truth of the matter.
Religion is not to blame for the evil men do.
Not all of it, but a great deal.
Men do evil in the absence of religion.
Which doesn't alter the above fact.
Christ did not evil and if we loved God and our neighbour as ourselves the world would hold no evil.
Loving "God" is superfluous ... loving our neighbour does the trick without fairy stories.
-
I have yet to meet any Christians of the 'born-again' ilk who think that way, Floo, and I know a fair number.
So do I unfortunately! :o
Are you saying that you, too, know a fair number of 'born again' Christians who don't think in the way that your original post posited, Floo? ;)
By the way, as Jim has mentioned on more than one occasion, to be a Christian is to be 'born again' so there is no such thing as a "'born-again' ilk" of Christian.
-
Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and pOwer
Which is why there has always been room for atrocities.
Of course for some Christians it will always be about "love" and " the Good Samaritan " but often with organised religion it isn't.
Which is why it is so important to believe ridiculous things and not question the validity of it.
Lean not to your own understanding, as it says in Christianity, well of course not, if you applied humanitarianism to things, a lot of bad things in history would never have happened. It would have burst the bubble of those who were power hungry.
As Voltaire once said
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire
This could also be aimed at Islam.
Too few people take a "stand of conscience" against organised religions or those with religious ambition for power.
Or even disorganised religions come to that.
Injustices exist because people allow it to.
Religion of various sorts, is often at the forefront of injustice.
A lot of the time it becomes the justification for it.
:(
If religions were really about good vs evil and standing up against injustice in the world ,and defending the vunerable, the world would have been a much better and nicer place.
Yes am having a cynical day today >:(
Till you see the truth for what it is,.. you will remain cynical and wrong, Rose.
Religion is not to blame for the evil men do.
Men do evil in the absence of religion.
Christ did not evil and if we loved God and our neighbour as ourselves the world would hold no evil.
After your posts on the migrant thread you are not in a position to preach to anyone, especially about loving one's neighbour! :o
-
I have yet to meet any Christians of the 'born-again' ilk who think that way, Floo, and I know a fair number.
So do I unfortunately! :o
Are you saying that you, too, know a fair number of 'born again' Christians who don't think in the way that your original post posited, Floo? ;)
By the way, as Jim has mentioned on more than one occasion, to be a Christian is to be 'born again' so there is no such thing as a "'born-again' ilk" of Christian.
I know some decent 'born agains' as well as the evil twisted ones! Christianity is made up of many doctrines, cults, dogmas, sects and cult, of which the 'born again' dogma is just one!
-
I suppose making religions, people of faith, neither having any more or any less of a say than everybody else, a level playing field, would make religious people feel as though they are being controlled, compared to the privileges they enjoy at present.
ippy, I think that the term you were thinking of when you wrote 'religious people' is 'Church of England'. If not, perhaps you could enumerate the privileges that you believe Buddhists, Methodists, Spiritualists, members of the Churches of Scotland and Wales, Muslims, Pentecostalists, Pagans, Baptists, Hindus, members of the United Reformed Church, Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians, Brethren, Roman Catholics ... enjoy here in the UK.
-
I know some decent 'born agains' as well as the evil twisted ones! Christianity is made up of many doctrines, cults, dogmas, sects and cult, of which the 'born again' dogma is just one!
I would take your pontifications more seriously, Floo, if you stopped making such elementary errors as this. To be 'born again' is synonymous with becoming a Christian in Biblical terms.
I realise that some Christian groupings like to make out that their experience is somewhat 'better' than the experience of other - to them - rather more mundane Christians by calling themselves 'born-again', but generally, that phraseology is hiding some extra requirement that their leaders have specified for the achievement of salvation. As such, your reference to them as sects or cults is probably more appropriate than referring to them as orthodox - or mainstream - Christians.
-
Till you see the truth for what it is,.. you will remain cynical and wrong, Rose.
Religion is not to blame for the evil men do.
Men do evil in the absence of religion.
Christ did not evil and if we loved God and our neighbour as ourselves the world would hold no evil.
ISIS love God, Sass - ask their neighbours how that's working out for them.
"...Then must you speak
Of one that lov'd not wisely but too well;
Of one not easily jealous, but being wrought,
Perplex'd in the extreme. . ."
O.
-
I know some decent 'born agains' as well as the evil twisted ones! Christianity is made up of many doctrines, cults, dogmas, sects and cult, of which the 'born again' dogma is just one!
I would take your pontifications more seriously, Floo, if you stopped making such elementary errors as this. To be 'born again' is synonymous with becoming a Christian in Biblical terms.
I realise that some Christian groupings like to make out that their experience is somewhat 'better' than the experience of other - to them - rather more mundane Christians by calling themselves 'born-again', but generally, that phraseology is hiding some extra requirement that their leaders have specified for the achievement of salvation. As such, your reference to them as sects or cults is probably more appropriate than referring to them as orthodox - or mainstream - Christians.
Of course the 'born again' lot think they are the only ones ending up in heaven, which shows what a crazy dogma it is. ::) If heaven exists I suspect people of all faiths and none will be there!
-
Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and pOwer
Which is why there has always been room for atrocities.
Of course for some Christians it will always be about "love" and " the Good Samaritan " but often with organised religion it isn't.
Which is why it is so important to believe ridiculous things and not question the validity of it.
Lean not to your own understanding, as it says in Christianity, well of course not, if you applied humanitarianism to things, a lot of bad things in history would never have happened. It would have burst the bubble of those who were power hungry.
As Voltaire once said
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Voltaire
This could also be aimed at Islam.
Too few people take a "stand of conscience" against organised religions or those with religious ambition for power.
Or even disorganised religions come to that.
Injustices exist because people allow it to.
Religion of various sorts, is often at the forefront of injustice.
A lot of the time it becomes the justification for it.
:(
If religions were really about good vs evil and standing up against injustice in the world ,and defending the vunerable, the world would have been a much better and nicer place.
Yes am having a cynical day today >:(
Till you see the truth for what it is,.. you will remain cynical and wrong, Rose.
Religion is not to blame for the evil men do.
Men do evil in the absence of religion.
Christ did not evil and if we loved God and our neighbour as ourselves the world would hold no evil.
After your posts on the migrant thread you are not in a position to preach to anyone, especially about loving one's neighbour! :o
Loving ones neighbour.... Allowing all these immigrants into this country can only undermine our country and cause even more poverty amongst our poorest and disabled and elderly people.
Imagine a boat you just keep packing it with more people.
IT WILL eventually sink and all will be lost. Why are people coming here. It is common sense that we save our own first then the rest of the world. It is stupidity and foolish to think this country can keep everyone else in the world.
We have taken enough and done more than any other country already. Let the rest of Europe and the World help them. We have done our part. They don't want to go anywhere else because they won't get handouts in the same way as this country dishes it out.
If they could get it in there own country would they be coming here.
If our people went there would they be given help and handouts.
Get a reality check we cannot afford this anymore.
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_civil_war
-
Loving ones neighbour.... Allowing all these immigrants into this country can only undermine our country and cause even more poverty amongst our poorest and disabled and elderly people.
It doesn't need to, but there is a significant risk that these would be the groups most disproportionately affected, yes. However, the 'poverty' in Britain is of a different magnitude and scale to that in places like North Africa. Poverty here is earning less than 60% of the average wage, that's disproportionately raised by the extremely high-earners in this countries.
Imagine a boat you just keep packing it with more people.
I don't need to imagine those boats, they're pushing off from the shores of North Africa all the time - they are obviously overloaded, obviously rickety, obviously unseaworthy - yet what lies behind is so atrocious that people still load their children into them. Why is that, do you think?
Why are people coming here.
Which 'here'? The UK, they aren't particularly, most of them are headed for Germany and Scandinavia. Europe - because it's where there is peace and hope and jobs and education and healthcare.
It is common sense that we save our own first then the rest of the world.
Science tells us that race is a myth - your own 'Good Samaritan' belies the idea that we look after our own first.
It is stupidity and foolish to think this country can keep everyone else in the world.
And no-one's suggesting that it should. What people are suggesting is that the world has room and resources enough for everyone, if certain nations weren't hoarding massive segments of it.
We have taken enough and done more than any other country already.
Done more than any other in what sense? We've not sold more weapons than everyone, nor taken more refugees and migrants. We've not sent more soldiers, nor given more overseas aid (although we are nearer the top of that measure than most).
It's not about whether we've done more than anyone else, Sass, it's about whether we've done enough, yet.
Let the rest of Europe and the World help them.
Large segments of Europe are, other segments aren't. The likes of Saudi, Kuwait and the like have done nothing, yet I doubt we'll see much in the way of complaints sent their way.
They don't want to go anywhere else because they won't get handouts in the same way as this country dishes it out.
Isn't Christianity supposed to value charity, Sass?
If they could get it in there own country would they be coming here.
Probably not, that's why they're leaving.
If our people went there would they be given help and handouts.
Get a reality check we cannot afford this anymore.
Why not, we're one of the five or six richest nations on the planet, we have more than enough resources to go round, if we make caring for people in trouble a priority.
O.
-
Shall we have a whip round to buy a TV for Sassy to watch the news so she can see where these people are coming from?
-
If theism is a world view then 2Corrie, Alien, Gabriella, Gonners, Sassy and I should all share it, as we are all theists.
Is that the case?
-
Shall we have a whip round to buy a TV for Sassy to watch the news so she can see where these people are coming from?
She appears to have access to the internet which has stuff like 'news channels' and 'newspapers' on it.
-
"Christianity is not about good vs evil but about living forever and power."
Sorry Rose but if that's what you believe about Christianity then you need to get out of that church you have been attending, cause it ain't Christian! It's sounds more like a cult filling your mind with poison.
If that's something you have decided all on your own then you need to get to know Christianity cause you obviously haven't a clue about it.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464996730254283067/
-
Heaven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6twEXynopo
-
"Christianity is not about good vs evil but about living forever and power."
Sorry Rose but if that's what you believe about Christianity then you need to get out of that church you have been attending, cause it ain't Christian! It's sounds more like a cult filling your mind with poison.
If that's something you have decided all on your own then you need to get to know Christianity cause you obviously haven't a clue about it.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/464996730254283067/
There you go, folks, Johnny Canoe has spoken, and thus it was... Rather than simply making a declaration, how about making a case, JC?
If you think the history of Christianity does not constitute a quest for eternal life and temporal power, then feel free to explain why.
O.
-
I suppose making religions, people of faith, neither having any more or any less of a say than everybody else, a level playing field, would make religious people feel as though they are being controlled, compared to the privileges they enjoy at present.
ippy, I think that the term you were thinking of when you wrote 'religious people' is 'Church of England'. If not, perhaps you could enumerate the privileges that you believe Buddhists, Methodists, Spiritualists, members of the Churches of Scotland and Wales, Muslims, Pentecostalists, Pagans, Baptists, Hindus, members of the United Reformed Church, Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians, Brethren, Roman Catholics ... enjoy here in the UK.
I'm certain that I wrote, "I suppose making religions, people of faith".
How would you encompass all people that have or hold a faith or religious beliefs Hope?
We can, all of us can be pedantic about language or continue speaking in a generally understood colloquial way.
It's not difficult to pick holes in many things like writing or speaking but what a pain it would be if we were to describe and say all of the exactly correct words every time we write or speak and if this kind of exactitude were taken up by anyone, who would want to speak to them or read anything they have written about for a second time?
In short Hope you know exactly what it was I was saying and apart from some fun banter from time to time, which is always good, give it a rest.
ippy
-
Mr. Out,
You, like Rose, are misguided about what Christianity is. If you had bothered to listen to the links I posted, you would not have gotten all bent out of shape over the fact that I don't believe Rose is correct on this.
Now if you think that Christianity is about lusting after power, then I have to assume you believe atheism is about the crimes committed by Pol Pot and also about lusting after power. If you can provide a Bible verse that believing in Christ or Christianity, is about lusting for power, please educate me. Hey, that should be no prob right?
Johnny Canoe has NOT spoken, he has WRITTEN!
-
Mr. Out,
We are adults, nobody believes that Christianity is about the crimes committed by people who call themselves Christian. Is atheism about the crimes committed by Pol Pot? Come on now let's not get silly with something as important as this. If you had been adult about it and listen to the links I posted you would get an idea of what Christianity is about. And you would realize Rose is misguided in the extreme on this. Yes, JC has NOT spoken but I have written.
Hi there Woody, Pol Pot may well have been an atheist but he did his wicked doings because he was an extremely nasty person; yes the things he did were terrible but he didn't, unless you know something I don't, do the bad things in the name of atheism, why would he?
Atheism only means we don't believe that there is any such thing as a god or gods and that's it.
I suspect you already know this but there is no argument that can verify the existence of god or gods, that must be frustrating for you and perhaps that's why, not just you, religionists like to keep coming up with this clutching at straws, lame statement.
Oh and by the way you've missed out Starlin & Hitler, Woody they're the other two bad men that did bad things but just like Pol Pot they didn't do their wicked things in the name of atheism.
It's a bit like Canadian's keep on chopping down trees and they don't do it just to be naughty or in the name of atheism, they only do it because they're: "I'm a Lumberjack and I Don't Care", all summed up very neatly by Messrs Python & Co, so there, that's you dealt with.
ippy
-
You, like Rose, are misguided about what Christianity is. If you had bothered to listen to the links I posted, you would not have gotten all bent out of shape over the fact that I don't believe Rose is correct on this.
I wasn't bent out of shape about you having a different opinion, I was a little bit amused at the colossal arrogance with which you depict that - and indeed every - difference. You say you have a definitive idea of Christianity, and any number of other people from the same limited source materials come up with any number of different takes on it.
Christianity is the sum of the thoughts and activities of those that call themselves Christian, and history will show whether that sum equates to a quest for immortality and temporal power or a tendency towards 'good'.
Now if you think that Christianity is about lusting after power, then I have to assume you believe atheism is about the crimes committed by Pol Pot and also about lusting after power.
No, I think that authoritarianism - like with Stalin - was the motivation for Pol Pot's atrocities. His atheism neither informed it nor stopped it. There is no path from 'I don't believe your claims of gods' to 'therefore I have to kill my political enemies', unlike the path from 'Gott mit uns' (God is with us) to 'those who are against must be killed'.
If you can provide a Bible verse that believing in Christ or Christianity, is about lusting for power, please educate me. Hey, that should be no prob right?
Johnny Canoe has NOT spoken, he has WRITTEN!
I don't care whether it's written, what's written is only part of what makes Christianity what it is. What people choose to do because of what's written is what makes Christianity what it is. All the misogyny and homophobia and racism in the Bible would make no difference whatsoever if idiots didn't go and apply it to the real world.
O.
-
Mr. Out,
Arrogant? Oh please give it a rest. Like you wouldn't have a negative reaction when atheism is lied about. Scripture is the guide for the Christian. So produce a verse that tells me I am following Christianity when lusting for power. You can't, as Christianity is NOT about lusting for power. You haven't been adult and listened to my links have you?
-
Arrogant? Oh please give it a rest. Like you wouldn't have a negative reaction when atheism is lied about.
Again you miss the point - it's not THAT you disagree that makes you arrogant. Many, many people here disagree with me on a range of different topics. It's the way you disagree.
Scripture is the guide for the Christian.
I'm sure the entirety of Christianity will be so glad you made that clear for them, it's not at all arrogant to be defining Christianity for the rest of the world. Is that the golden plates scripture that Smith translated that most Christians don't accept but some do, or the Old Testament tales of Moses and the like that many Christians say has been superseded but many others don't, or is that the New Testament (King James version) which many take as the reality whilst other sects accept various elements of the apocrypha or other translations, or no translations only the original...
So produce a verse that tells me I am following Christianity when lusting for power. You can't, as Christianity is NOT about lusting for power. You haven't been adult and listened to my links have you?
No, I haven't listened to your links, I'm afraid I'm not in a situation where I can play audio here. You say Christianity is not about a lust for power, but the history of the middle-ages, and the Papacy in-particular, would seem to suggest that's not the case.
I note that you're not being particularly vocal about the other half, about Christianity being about the quest for eternal life?
O.
-
Yes Mr. Out and your first post about my post wasn't arrogant at all. "Johnny Canoe has spoke" Too funny you.
I see, so what you are telling me is that atheism is basically all about the horrible crimes that Pol Pot and Mao committed. Isn't that a hoot!
-
Yes Mr. Out and your first post about my post wasn't arrogant at all. "Johnny Canoe has spoke" Too funny you.
Irony hasn't reached Canada yet?
I see, so what you are telling me is that atheism is basically all about the horrible crimes that Pol Pot and Mao committed. Isn't that a hoot!
Is the inability to get irony a product of the inability to comprehend basic written concepts, or is it separate?
O. HAS WRITTEN!!!
-
Mr. Out,
Wonderful and thanks for demonstrating your arrogance and hypocrisy again.
So nothing about atheism being basically about the murderous behaviour of Pol Pot and Mao. Noted.
-
Yes Mr. Out and your first post about my post wasn't arrogant at all. "Johnny Canoe has spoke" Too funny you.
I see, so what you are telling me is that atheism is basically all about the horrible crimes that Pol Pot and Mao committed. Isn't that a hoot!
Woody you haven't got a clue about atheism or Pol Pot's motivation.
ippy
-
Hi there Woody, Pol Pot may well have been an atheist but he did his wicked doings because he was an extremely nasty person; yes the things he did were terrible but he didn't, unless you know something I don't, do the bad things in the name of atheism, why would he?
No more or less so than anyone does nasty things 'in the name' of a (non)-belief system, ippy. Oddly enough, your comment actually reiterates that which johnny said!!
-
No, it doesn't reiterate what canoe said at all: canoe stated that atheism was basically about the murderous behaviour of Pol Pot and Mao. Ippy said the opposite.
-
Hi there Woody, Pol Pot may well have been an atheist but he did his wicked doings because he was an extremely nasty person; yes the things he did were terrible but he didn't, unless you know something I don't, do the bad things in the name of atheism, why would he?
No more or less so than anyone does nasty things 'in the name' of a (non)-belief system, ippy. Oddly enough, your comment actually reiterates that which johnny said!!
Oh dear Hope, Pol Pot my well have done those things if he happened to be a relogioso, the man was a shit (a modern description of a baddie).
If you think good old Pol did his deeds in the name of atheism; well it's not worth the bother.
ippy
-
Hey ya Chopper,
We agree. Mr. Out believes Christianity to be about lust for power. That's a lie, he can't produce any scripture telling us that. But if he wants to walk that road he better be prepared to state that atheism is basically about the murderous actions of atheists like Pol Pot. A human is a human in my book. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I haven't messed up or won't in the future. Those mess ups are not what Christianity is about. Was it a mess up for the atheist governments of the USSR to try and kill off belief in God? Or is that basically what your atheism is about? No, atheism isn't about killing belief in God but some atheists have tried and failed to do just that.
-
Hey ya Chopper,
We agree. Mr. Out believes Christianity to be about lust for power. That's a lie, he can't produce any scripture telling us that. But if he wants to walk that road he better be prepared to state that atheism is basically about the murderous actions of atheists like Pol Pot. A human is a human in my book. Just because I am a Christian doesn't mean I haven't messed up or won't in the future. Those mess ups are not what Christianity is about. Was it a mess up for the atheist governments of the USSR to try and kill off belief in God? Or is that basically what your atheism is about? No, atheism isn't about killing belief in God but some atheists have tried and failed to do just that.
Woody you still don't get it.
Why would I or anyone else set up a regime putting all of the Canadian lumberjacks into concentration camps with a view to polishing them all off, based on my non-belief in Unicorns? Or polish them off in the name of aunicornism?
Do you get it now? Anymore than I wold be killing your numerous lumberjacks off because I'm an atheist? In the name of atheism?
Does that Help Woody?
ippy
-
Chopper!! Stop playing so stunted. I AGREE. If I lusted for power that would be NOT BE what Christianity is about. MR. OUT SAYS IT IS. NO, he can't show me that in scripture. But he must also believe that POL POT's murdering rampage was what atheism is about. NOW PAY ATTENTION!! I do NOT believe atheism is about slaughtering people. Pol Pot just happened to be an atheist. A Christian lusting for power is in sin and not living what Christianity is about. Please listen to my link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L-uv2AM6qc
-
No, it doesn't reiterate what canoe said at all: canoe stated that atheism was basically about the murderous behaviour of Pol Pot and Mao. Ippy said the opposite.
No, in his first reference to atheism - posted yesterday at 02:38:30 (post no longer available it would seem - but quoted in ippy's post #55) jc said
We are adults, nobody believes that Christianity is about the crimes committed by people who call themselves Christian. Is atheism about the crimes committed by Pol Pot? Come on now let's not get silly with something as important as this.
From even a simple understanding of English, it is obvious that the 'nobody believes' bit in the first sentence is mirrored in the 2nd and 3rd sentences. Unfortunately, ippy has a habit of misreading or misunderstanding simple English constructions.
In post #54, which still stands, he then said this:
Now if you think that Christianity is about lusting after power, then I have to assume you believe atheism is about the crimes committed by Pol Pot and also about lusting after power.
All ippy did was to reiterate this understanding!!
-
I suppose making religions, people of faith, ..., compared to the privileges they enjoy at present.
ippy, I think that the term you were thinking of when you wrote 'religious people' is 'Church of England'. If not, perhaps you could enumerate the privileges that you believe Buddhists, Methodists, Spiritualists, members of the Churches of Scotland and Wales, Muslims, Pentecostalists, Pagans, Baptists, Hindus, members of the United Reformed Church, Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians, Brethren, Roman Catholics ... enjoy here in the UK.
I'm certain that I wrote, "I suppose making religions, people of faith".
You did, ippy. Well done. You then went on to indicate that you believe that all people of faith enjoy privileges here in the UK (see that section of your original post that I have requoted above). All I did was ask what privileges various people of faith have here and noting that I thought that most religious privileges here pertain to the Church of England. Perhaps, rather than trying to back out from your original assertion, you will now answer my question.
-
Wonderful and thanks for demonstrating your arrogance and hypocrisy again.
Ah, the time-honoured 'I know you are, but what am I?' defence.
So nothing about atheism being basically about the murderous behaviour of Pol Pot and Mao.
Atheism is about the behaviour of Pol Pot and Mao? If you'd suggested that the behaviour of Pol Pot and Mao was about their atheism then I'd invite you to fail to make a coherent case, but to suggest that atheism - which existed long before either of them - could be about them...? That's just nonsense.
O.
-
I suppose making religions, people of faith, ..., compared to the privileges they enjoy at present.
ippy, I think that the term you were thinking of when you wrote 'religious people' is 'Church of England'. If not, perhaps you could enumerate the privileges that you believe Buddhists, Methodists, Spiritualists, members of the Churches of Scotland and Wales, Muslims, Pentecostalists, Pagans, Baptists, Hindus, members of the United Reformed Church, Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians, Brethren, Roman Catholics ... enjoy here in the UK.
I'm certain that I wrote, "I suppose making religions, people of faith".
You did, ippy. Well done. You then went on to indicate that you believe that all people of faith enjoy privileges here in the UK (see that section of your original post that I have requoted above). All I did was ask what privileges various people of faith have here and noting that I thought that most religious privileges here pertain to the Church of England. Perhaps, rather than trying to back out from your original assertion, you will now answer my question.
As if someone that has spent the amount of time in education that you tell everybody you have, doesn't know about the privileges most religions have in education here in the UK? Yes the C of E is, as always, in the forefront.
ippy
-
Scripture is the guide for the Christian.
However, there is a very large body of those who profess to be Christian who would affirm that Sola Scriptura is heresy.
-
And that opinion is not scriptural.
"And these things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." 1Corinthians 4:6
-
And THAT'S why there's only ONE Christian group ! ;D
Oh Hang on a mo......... ;) ::)
-
And that opinion is not scriptural.
"And these things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." 1Corinthians 4:6
Amen
The grass withers and the flowers fade but the word of our God stands forever.
-
And that opinion is not scriptural.
"And these things brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." 1Corinthians 4:6
Amen
The grass withers and the flowers fade but the word of our God stands forever.
And the back up for this assertion of yours 2C is?
The bananas grow and the Elephant grass casts its seeds my goodness wasn't the weather terrible here in the south east today. (Makes equally as much sense as your empty post 2 C).
Oh man.
ippy
-
And the back up for this assertion of yours 2C is?
ippy, I believe that there have probably been about 1980 seasonal cycles across the world since Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty sizeable amount of Elephant grass and bananas. I'd be surprised if you were able to produce an edible banana that dates from that period of history. On the other hand, I can offer you a written document that dates from between 12 and 22 years after the event I referred to above (45/55 AD). Its called Paul's Epistle to the Galations. Furthermore, I could - if I had access to the relevant archive - produce a hard copy of that document that scientists have dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That's the advantage of written documentation; it can - given the right conditions - survive for centuries.
-
And the back up for this assertion of yours 2C is?
ippy, I believe that there have probably been about 1980 seasonal cycles across the world since Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty sizable amount of Elephant grass and bananas. I'd be surprised if you were able to produce an edible banana that dates from that period of history. On the other hand, I can offer you a written document that dates from between 12 and 22 years after the event I referred to above (45/55 AD). Its called Paul's Epistle to the Galations. Furthermore, I could - if I had access to the relevant archive - produce a hard copy of that document that scientists have dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That's the advantage of written documentation; it can - given the right conditions - survive for centuries.
Let's suppose your evidence proves that somebody called Paul, the actual Paul you're speaking of, did in fact exist and existed at circa the time you say.
How would that bring the mythical, superstitious and magic content of your manual any nearer to being substantiated as any more believable facts than they are at the moment?
As I have tried to explain to you, if anyone were to come up with any viable evidence that supported the mythical, superstitious and magical elements of the said manual, it would be never ending world news on all of the media outlets, and all of those people you keep referring to as atheists would be joining your club.
The above hasn't happened and is very unlikely to happen either, so, in the mean time, what god or gods?
Even if your Paul was about at the times you say he was, even then assuming he did in fact say the things you say he did and assuming the translations did convey, even if not word perfect, as close as possible a faithful translation into English, (Bearing in mind the translation of languages is far from an exact science), it still doesn't amount to anything near to conclusive proof or lend credibility to any of the mythical, superstitious or magical happenings your manual likes to refer to, the happenings that you would like to think did happen.
ippy
-
And the back up for this assertion of yours 2C is?
ippy, I believe that there have probably been about 1980 seasonal cycles across the world since Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty sizable amount of Elephant grass and bananas. I'd be surprised if you were able to produce an edible banana that dates from that period of history. On the other hand, I can offer you a written document that dates from between 12 and 22 years after the event I referred to above (45/55 AD). Its called Paul's Epistle to the Galations. Furthermore, I could - if I had access to the relevant archive - produce a hard copy of that document that scientists have dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That's the advantage of written documentation; it can - given the right conditions - survive for centuries.
Let's suppose your evidence proves that somebody called Paul, the actual Paul you're speaking of, did in fact exist and existed at circa the time you say.
How would that bring the mythical, superstitious and magic content of your manual any nearer to being substantiated as any more believable facts than they are at the moment?
As I have tried to explain to you, if anyone were to come up with any viable evidence that supported the mythical, superstitious and magical elements of the said manual, it would be never ending world news on all of the media outlets, and all of those people you keep referring to as atheists would be joining your club.
The above hasn't happened and is very unlikely to happen either, so, in the mean time, what god or gods?
Even if your Paul was about at the times you say he was, even then assuming he did in fact say the things you say he did and assuming the translations did convey, even if not word perfect, as close as possible a faithful translation into English, (Bearing in mind the translation of languages is far from an exact science), it still doesn't amount to anything near to conclusive proof or lend credibility to any of the mythical, superstitious or magical happenings your manual likes to refer to, the happenings that you would like to think did happen.
ippy
It's amusing the way they tell us that it's all true because there are fragments of a document - written 20 years after the alleged event and which has to be translated from its ancient original language - that says there were miraculous happenings in an area of the Middle East.
But if they found documents tomorrow telling of miraculous happenings last week in a remote area of the Middle East, they would dismiss it without a blink of the eyelid!
Oh to have the integrity of a true Christian!
-
It's amusing the way they tell us that it's all true because there are fragments of a document - written 20 years after the alleged event and which has to be translated from its ancient original language - that says there were miraculous happenings in an area of the Middle East.
But if they found documents tomorrow telling of miraculous happenings last week in a remote area of the Middle East, they would dismiss it without a blink of the eyelid!
Oh to have the integrity of a true Christian!
We have first person testimony from someone we know existed in the US - we have his criminal records to show that he was real - yet the majority of them don't accept Mormonism?
We have historical documents from the middle East giving accounts of Mohammed's encounters with one of the angels, and the lessons he taught, yet they don't accept Islam.
It's almost as though the justifications come after the belief, or something...
O.
-
Surely not!
-
And the back up for this assertion of yours 2C is?
ippy, I believe that there have probably been about 1980 seasonal cycles across the world since Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty sizeable amount of Elephant grass and bananas. I'd be surprised if you were able to produce an edible banana that dates from that period of history. On the other hand, I can offer you a written document that dates from between 12 and 22 years after the event I referred to above (45/55 AD). Its called Paul's Epistle to the Galations. Furthermore, I could - if I had access to the relevant archive - produce a hard copy of that document that scientists have dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That's the advantage of written documentation; it can - given the right conditions - survive for centuries.
But that doesn't mean those documents have any veracity, especially as they were written well after Jesus was dead. Word of mouth is NOT reliable, ever played Chinese whispers?
-
And the back up for this assertion of yours 2C is?
ippy, I believe that there have probably been about 1980 seasonal cycles across the world since Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty sizeable amount of Elephant grass and bananas. I'd be surprised if you were able to produce an edible banana that dates from that period of history. On the other hand, I can offer you a written document that dates from between 12 and 22 years after the event I referred to above (45/55 AD). Its called Paul's Epistle to the Galations. Furthermore, I could - if I had access to the relevant archive - produce a hard copy of that document that scientists have dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. That's the advantage of written documentation; it can - given the right conditions - survive for centuries.
But that doesn't mean those documents have any veracity, especially as they were written well after Jesus was dead. Word of mouth is NOT reliable, ever played Chinese whispers?
He proberbly does realise, but doesn't want to give up and admit it, to himself primarily.
It must be difficult for anyone to admit they've been peddling nonsense for years.
ippy
-
It's the sunk costs fallacy.
-
But that doesn't mean those documents have any veracity, especially as they were written well after Jesus was dead. Word of mouth is NOT reliable, ever played Chinese whispers?
Oh no, not that old chestnut again, Floo. I've recently dealt with it on another thread.
By the way, have you ever played said game with adults who don't read and write, Floo. It is a competely different game. Rather trying to work out at which point the errors start to creep in, its a matter of seeing how long they can keep the message going in its correct form. Often, it isn't a brief one or two sentence message as would be the case with children and literate folk; it can be a 8-10 sentence passage. I've even known the people playing it come back some time later - weeks and even months - and repeat it word for word. Remember that when one doesn't read or write one will often 'tell' a story time and time again, rather than relying on a single reading/writing or two.
-
Oh no, not that old chestnut again, Floo. I've recently dealt with it on another thread.
By the way, have you ever played said game with adults who don't read and write, Floo. It is a competely different game. Rather trying to work out at which point the errors start to creep in, its a matter of seeing how long they can keep the message going in its correct form. Often, it isn't a brief one or two sentence message as would be the case with children and literate folk; it can be a 8-10 sentence passage. I've even known the people playing it come back some time later - weeks and even months - and repeat it word for word. Remember that when one doesn't read or write one will often 'tell' a story time and time again, rather than relying on a single reading/writing or two.
Ancient and Mediaeval Memories: Studies in the Reconstruction of the Past - Janet Coleman
"...the assumption that non-literate cultures encourage lengthy verbatim recall is the mistaken projection by literates of text-dependent frames of reference."
She also includes a lengthy section on the use of ancient Jewish texts by the early Christian scholars which give equally short shrift to the idea of verbatim recollection. Essentially, the verbal tradition conveys concepts reasonably well from one person to the next, but the concepts that one individual focuses on may not be the ones that were the intent of whomever imparted the information to them.
Songs, on the other hand, often are conveyed verbatim, and it seems likely that the Psalms, for instance, are reasonably intact from their initial construction.
So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.
O.
-
And again, even were verbal recall to be better, it does not mean that event recall is better.
-
Songs, on the other hand, often are conveyed verbatim, and it seems likely that the Psalms, for instance, are reasonably intact from their initial construction.
So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.
O.
This is an interesting observation which agrees with the experience of many modern opera singers, who have to learn huge swathes of sung text, often in languages in which they are not at all fluent, or maybe actually speak only a few words at most. Something about the addition of music to the plain word seems to be a remarkable memory-aid.
-
Not just music, iambic pentameter (amongst others) helps. Having patterned stories helps with stored repetitive phrases also helps, hence the two feeding of the multitudes.
-
Songs, on the other hand, often are conveyed verbatim, and it seems likely that the Psalms, for instance, are reasonably intact from their initial construction.
So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.
O.
This is an interesting observation which agrees with the experience of many modern opera singers, who have to learn huge swathes of sung text, often in languages in which they are not at all fluent, or maybe actually speak only a few words at most. Something about the addition of music to the plain word seems to be a remarkable memory-aid.
I'd need to look up the detail, but I remember that singing and speaking use different areas of the brain - when we memorise songs, we don't typically include the meaning, whereas speech we do.
One practical application of this difference is that it's used to help people who suffer from stuttering - they are toldto sing the words they are using and the different brain area bypasses the 'glitch' that causes the stutter.
O.
-
But that doesn't mean those documents have any veracity, especially as they were written well after Jesus was dead. Word of mouth is NOT reliable, ever played Chinese whispers?
Oh no, not that old chestnut again, Floo. I've recently dealt with it on another thread.
By the way, have you ever played said game with adults who don't read and write, Floo. It is a competely different game. Rather trying to work out at which point the errors start to creep in, its a matter of seeing how long they can keep the message going in its correct form. Often, it isn't a brief one or two sentence message as would be the case with children and literate folk; it can be a 8-10 sentence passage. I've even known the people playing it come back some time later - weeks and even months - and repeat it word for word. Remember that when one doesn't read or write one will often 'tell' a story time and time again, rather than relying on a single reading/writing or two.
Word of mouth accounts have the same veracity as Chinese whispers, especially when passed down over the years, imo!
-
But that doesn't mean those documents have any veracity, especially as they were written well after Jesus was dead. Word of mouth is NOT reliable, ever played Chinese whispers?
Oh no, not that old chestnut again, Floo. I've recently dealt with it on another thread.
By the way, have you ever played said game with adults who don't read and write, Floo. It is a competely different game. Rather trying to work out at which point the errors start to creep in, its a matter of seeing how long they can keep the message going in its correct form. Often, it isn't a brief one or two sentence message as would be the case with children and literate folk; it can be a 8-10 sentence passage. I've even known the people playing it come back some time later - weeks and even months - and repeat it word for word. Remember that when one doesn't read or write one will often 'tell' a story time and time again, rather than relying on a single reading/writing or two.
All of which, IMV, doesn't address the real question! Why - even if over a 20 year period, every word was remembered accurately and relayed perfectly - you believe those fantastical stories but you'd dismiss any similar claim made only last week! And you actually do dismiss very similar claims for both Mormonism and Islam!
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
Problematically for you, exactly the same, word for word, can be said about your belief - but not the reality - that you had witnessed a resurrection.
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
Lol
A bit like one of those films where the corpse comes to life in the morgue, and everyone screams and runs for it. :o
Nope. I think you will find that 2Corrie was talking about Jesus' resurrection. However, I think you probably understood that anyway.
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
Lol
A bit like one of those films where the corpse comes to life in the morgue, and everyone screams and runs for it. :o
Nope. I think you will find that 2Corrie was talking about Jesus' resurrection. However, I think you probably understood that anyway.
NOBODY actually witnessed the resurrection. They simply claimed they saw Jesus alive after he had been entombed ... which is a very different thing.
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
Lol
A bit like one of those films where the corpse comes to life in the morgue, and everyone screams and runs for it. :o
Nope. I think you will find that 2Corrie was talking about Jesus' resurrection. However, I think you probably understood that anyway.
NOBODY actually witnessed the resurrection. They simply claimed they saw Jesus alive after he had been entombed ... which is a very different thing.
Yes, I know that and so does 2Corrie. Let's rephrase it then. If she or I had met up with the risen Jesus, talked with him and eaten with him, particularly if we did this a number of times, we think we would remember it 20 years and more later. That is the point being made, despite Rose's silly comment.
-
Yes, I know that and so does 2Corrie. Let's rephrase it then. If she or I had met up with the risen Jesus, talked with him and eaten with him, particularly if we did this a number of times, we think we would remember it 20 years and more later. That is the point being made, despite Rose's silly comment.
I don't remember any repeated meetings or meals with Jesus ... they were all one off instances by different people, but please correct me if I am wrong.
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
But none of them witnessed the actual resurrection did they?
-
If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !
People often make that mistake of thinking that emotional significance of strong reactions at the time somehow make the memory more reliable, but investigation fairly consistently shows that this isn't the case.
Even then, it's still dependent upon the person's interpretation at the time, which is just as fallible.
O.
-
My wife still swears she saw a ghost seven years ago. I didn't believe her at the time and I still don't believe her now...
-
So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.
Except where scholarly research contradicts that, O. Such as - Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen,
-
So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.
Except where scholarly research contradicts that, O. Such as - Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen,
Ong's work is all theoretical, hypothesising about pre-literate cultures with - by definition - no actual evidence to go on. Modern world sociologists, though, reviewing extant cultures without written language, and remnant cultures without written language are able to show the shift in oral tradition.
The tracing of various oral traditions, and their variations, through the Celtic people as they spread across Europe and had their legends translated into the local languages is a case in point. Whilst there is some inevitable loss of consistency due to translation errors and the lack of a complete cultural correlate, there are underlying differences to the fundamentals of the stories.
The evidence just doesn't support this idea of superhuman preliterate memory machines passing on a wealth of eternally unchanging stories.
It's also worth noting, for full disclosure as it were, that Ong, Walter J is more formally Reverend Father Walter Jackson Ong, a Jesuit priest. That doesn't invalidate his research, but it does give a fuller idea of the preconceptions he brings to it.
O.
-
Yes, I know that and so does 2Corrie. Let's rephrase it then. If she or I had met up with the risen Jesus, talked with him and eaten with him, particularly if we did this a number of times, we think we would remember it 20 years and more later. That is the point being made, despite Rose's silly comment.
I don't remember any repeated meetings or meals with Jesus ... they were all one off instances by different people, but please correct me if I am wrong.
You are wrong. Have a read of the end of John's gospel, for example.
-
We have first person testimony from someone we know existed in the US - we have his criminal records to show that he was real - yet the majority of them don't accept Mormonism?
We have historical documents from the middle East giving accounts of Mohammed's encounters with one of the angels, and the lessons he taught, yet they don't accept Islam.
It's almost as though the justifications come after the belief, or something...
O.
O, the problem with both Islam and Mormonism is that what they teach is in direct contradiction of what Jesus taught, yet both want to make use of Jesus and his teachings as one of a number of pillars that support their teachings. Perhaps you struggle to understand the illogical nature of that position.
-
And again, even were verbal recall to be better, it does not mean that event recall is better.
Notice that all this debate is taking place within a literary tradition, involving people who have little or no experience of living within an oral tradition, and all of whom are literate; in other words, it involves almost no-one who has first-hand experience of not having a literate tradition to fall back upon. As such we are no better than the blind leading the blind.
-
And again, even were verbal recall to be better, it does not mean that event recall is better.
Notice that all this debate is taking place within a literary tradition, involving people who have little or no experience of living within an oral tradition, and all of whom are literate; in other words, it involves almost no-one who has first-hand experience of not having a literate tradition to fall back upon. As such we are no better than the blind leading the blind.
That's just pish - particualrly as you are the one to have been claiming to have some insight here. What you have just said is that you shouldn't have made the claims you did - did you want to do that ?
-
Word of mouth accounts have the same veracity as Chinese whispers, especially when passed down over the years, imo!
Its a pity for you, Floo, that scholarly research tends to disagree with you. Obviously, you are entitled to your own opinion, but then you need to be able to provide evidence for that opinion which you have never done in all the years I have known you.
-
That's just pish - particualrly as you are the one to have been claiming to have some insight here. What you have just said is that you shouldn't have made the claims you did - did you want to do that ?
Sorry, NS, I have used scholarly research to back up what I am claiming. With the exception of O, who has done something similar to back up his, no-one else has.
-
That's just pish - particualrly as you are the one to have been claiming to have some insight here. What you have just said is that you shouldn't have made the claims you did - did you want to do that ?
Sorry, NS, I have used scholarly research to back up what I am claiming. With the exception of O, who has done something similar to back up his, no-one else has.
Yes - but you have just said that we cannot talk about it because we don't have that experience - which would then apply to any scholarly view you cite from now. Further the point I was making is not addressed by any of your claims, or the work of Ong since being able to repeat a story says nothing about the problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses.
-
We have first person testimony from someone we know existed in the US - we have his criminal records to show that he was real - yet the majority of them don't accept Mormonism?
We have historical documents from the middle East giving accounts of Mohammed's encounters with one of the angels, and the lessons he taught, yet they don't accept Islam.
It's almost as though the justifications come after the belief, or something...
O.
O, the problem with both Islam and Mormonism is that what they teach is in direct contradiction of what Jesus taught, yet both want to make use of Jesus and his teachings as one of a number of pillars that support their teachings. Perhaps you struggle to understand the illogical nature of that position.
Except that the problem with that is that Jesus' teachings stand in direct contrast to the Old Testament, yet you quite happily follow those and claim that they are an 'update'. Their internal justification is as valid as yours, they equally ignore the massive disconnect in change in character in a supposed timeless ultimate being that Christians do, yet you call them on it and accept your own.
From outside, the two look entirely equivalent.
O.
-
Ong's work is all theoretical, hypothesising about pre-literate cultures with - by definition - no actual evidence to go on. Modern world sociologists, though, reviewing extant cultures without written language, and remnant cultures without written language are able to show the shift in oral tradition.
It's also worth noting, for full disclosure as it were, that Ong, Walter J is more formally Reverend Father Walter Jackson Ong, a Jesuit priest. That doesn't invalidate his research, but it does give a fuller idea of the preconceptions he brings to it.
Except that Ong's work is also based on observations made by people.
Regarding his formal status, does that make any difference? After all, Mendel ('father of genetics') was a monk.
For your information, I first heard about Ong as part of my MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester.
-
Yes - but you have just said that we cannot talk about it because we don't have that experience - which would then apply to any scholarly view you cite from now. Further the point I was making is not addressed by any of your claims, or the work of Ong since being able to repeat a story says nothing about the problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses.
Ong and others use the experience and study of extant non-literate communities in their studies. As regards the 'problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses', the problems are all based on 'literate' understanding.
-
Yes - but you have just said that we cannot talk about it because we don't have that experience - which would then apply to any scholarly view you cite from now. Further the point I was making is not addressed by any of your claims, or the work of Ong since being able to repeat a story says nothing about the problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses.
Ong and others use the experience and study of extant non-literate communities in their studies.
Excpet your post indicated that it was onl;y by experince of being a native of non-literate that would allow anyone to talk about it. Studying them would not do that. That's why I asked if you meant to say that - I suggest you try again.
And as already pointed out, I don't need to cite any acadmeics to make the point that the work of Ong does not address anything about the relialbility of eyewitnesses.
-
Except that Ong's work is also based on observations made by people.
Hand up, here, I've not read the work myself, but from the reviews I've read the general commentary is that his work is predominantly theoretical. No-one went so far in the reviews to accuse him of cherry picking any practical work, but they were fairly consistent in saying that the prevailing practical research went against his conclusions.
Regarding his formal status, does that make any difference? After all, Mendel ('father of genetics') was a monk.
An argument stands on its own merits, and I hope I've put forward why I think the argument doesn't stand up. My noting that he was a Jesuit priest - a group who, in general, have a good track record for academic work - was more an attempt to understand why he might cleave to a path that the evidence based thinking of the time (this was the early 80s when he published) didn't support.
Coupled with the fact that the bulk of his actual scholarly work wasn't to do with the veracity or consistency of the oral traditions, but rather the impact literacy had on culture - it was, therefore, focussed more on the cultures that WERE literate than those that weren't - it suggests that he's not an ideal prop for the argument of oral inerrancy.
For your information, I first heard about Ong as part of my MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester.
My background is science, computing and engineering, however the argument stands on its merits, not on the Reverend's calling or education, nor on yours or mine.
O.
-
You are wrong. Have a read of the end of John's gospel, for example.
I can't see anything there that shows repeated meetings with Jesus after his resurrection. Can you quote me the specific verses?
-
You are wrong. Have a read of the end of John's gospel, for example.
I can't see anything there that shows repeated meetings with Jesus after his resurrection. Can you quote me the specific verses?
John 20:19-28 tells us of Jesus meeting the disciples (minus Thomas) and then same again a week later, this time with Thomas. Other disciples, e.g. Mary Magdalene had met him beforehand as well, so they would have met him three times.
With Peter meeting him twice as above, we then have him (and others) meeting Jesus again in John 21. Remember too the accounts given in 1 Corinthians 15 which seem to speak of Peter meeting Jesus on his own.
Etc.
-
John 20:19-28 tells us of Jesus meeting the disciples (minus Thomas) and then same again a week later, this time with Thomas. Other disciples, e.g. Mary Magdalene had met him beforehand as well, so they would have met him three times.
With Peter meeting him twice as above, we then have him (and others) meeting Jesus again in John 21. Remember too the accounts given in 1 Corinthians 15 which seem to speak of Peter meeting Jesus on his own.
Etc.
OK Alan, thank you for that, it seems that some of them did see him several times.
If that is true, we either have to accept that he resurrected or that he wasn't dead after the crucifixion.
-
The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Because there's no such proof, ipster. At all ;)
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
Well, I think I can help you there ... :D
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
Surely Jesus wouldn't have disappeared up to heaven so quickly if he had really resurrected. Why isn't he still around today in the flesh, instead of the imagination?
-
The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.
Yes, I agree. But if the reported sightings are true, then as far as I am concerned Jesus didn't die on the cross ... and it is totally impossible to produce evidence that he did.
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
Surely Jesus wouldn't have disappeared up to heaven so quickly if he had really resurrected.
Why not? He was around for 40 days.Why isn't he still around today in the flesh, instead of the imagination?
Why do you say it is (just) in the imagination? He did send his Spirit.
-
The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.
Yes, I agree. But if the reported sightings are true, then as far as I am concerned Jesus didn't die on the cross ... and it is totally impossible to produce evidence that he did.
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
As to him being alive, right as nine-pence, not just crawling around barely alive, we have about a dozen individuals and groups who met with and sometimes ate with Jesus over a 40 day period.
Sorry if the evidence is confusing your atheist mind, Leonard. A bit of cognitive dissonance can be good for you.
-
We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact. For all we know it could have been a fairy tale constructed by his followers. It is very strange that if Jesus was in reality the person he is said to be in the gospels, lots of independent historians didn't write about him.
-
(1)We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact. (2) For all we know it could have been a fairy tale constructed by his followers. (3) It is very strange that if Jesus was in reality the person he is said to be in the gospels, lots of independent historians didn't write about him.
(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo. (2) Yet you have never been able to produce any evidence to support this suggestion, despite making it on numerous occasions on different forums and threads. The English 11th century leader Hereward the Wake has very little written about him but he is still regarded as having lived. He is mentioned in 4 documents - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Domesday Book, Liber Eliensis and - most importantly - the Gesta Herewardi. This last is thought to have been written between 1109 and 1131 by one of Hereward's brothers-in-arms - and therefore an eye-witness account. Even if we discount everything that occurred before the Battle of Senlac Ridge, that's still 40-60 years after the events. Why should taht be any more reliable than - say Mark's Gospel - which was likely written 30-40 years after the events it records and may have been written by someone who both experienced the events, and at the dictation of someone who was there.
-
The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.
Yes, I agree. But if the reported sightings are true, then as far as I am concerned Jesus didn't die on the cross ... and it is totally impossible to produce evidence that he did.
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
As to him being alive, right as nine-pence, not just crawling around barely alive, we have about a dozen individuals and groups who met with and sometimes ate with Jesus over a 40 day period.
Sorry if the evidence is confusing your atheist mind, Leonard. A bit of cognitive dissonance can be good for you.
I'm afraid the crucifixion story is just that, a story, and we have no means of discerning it from fiction.
-
The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.
Yes, I agree. But if the reported sightings are true, then as far as I am concerned Jesus didn't die on the cross ... and it is totally impossible to produce evidence that he did.
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
As to him being alive, right as nine-pence, not just crawling around barely alive, we have about a dozen individuals and groups who met with and sometimes ate with Jesus over a 40 day period.
Sorry if the evidence is confusing your atheist mind, Leonard. A bit of cognitive dissonance can be good for you.
I'm afraid the crucifixion story is just that, a story, and we have no means of discerning it from fiction.
Len, I didn't think Hereward the Wake was crucified, when did that happen, I must have missed it.
ippy
-
The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.
Yes, I agree. But if the reported sightings are true, then as far as I am concerned Jesus didn't die on the cross ... and it is totally impossible to produce evidence that he did.
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
As to him being alive, right as nine-pence, not just crawling around barely alive, we have about a dozen individuals and groups who met with and sometimes ate with Jesus over a 40 day period.
Sorry if the evidence is confusing your atheist mind, Leonard. A bit of cognitive dissonance can be good for you.
I'm afraid the crucifixion story is just that, a story, and we have no means of discerning it from fiction.
Come on, Leonard. A big boy like you can't tell?
-
(1)We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact.
(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo.
No day would be complete without Hope's beloved appeal to ignorance. I can eat my supper and have a glass or two of El Plonko Collapso 2013 tonight safe in the knowledge that the planet will keep on turning, the sun will rise in the morning, David Cameron will still be a fat-faced arse and Hoppity will still think that the lack of decisive evidence against something is sufficient reason to take it seriously.
Life is good. Or at the very least, incredibly predictable in some regards.
-
Come on, Leonard. A big boy like you can't tell?
No, and nor can anybody else ... but my belief is that it has no basis in fact.
-
Come on, Leonard. A big boy like you can't tell?
No, and nor can anybody else ... but my belief is that it has no basis in fact.
Your belief? I dunno, you atheists, eh?
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
Surely Jesus wouldn't have disappeared up to heaven so quickly if he had really resurrected. Why isn't he still around today in the flesh, instead of the imagination?
This is answered in John 16 and Acts 2
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
Surely Jesus wouldn't have disappeared up to heaven so quickly if he had really resurrected. Why isn't he still around today in the flesh, instead of the imagination?
This is answered in John 16 and Acts 2
So the evidence is in the same book that cannot supply any evidence that would confirm there is any substance in the supernatural, mythical or magical parts of itself.
I see, thanks for telling me where? That really makes sense?
ippy
-
If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?
Because there's no such proof, ipster. At all ;)
Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?
ippy
Well, I think I can help you there ... :D
Had a look back Shakes at the bit where I wrote:
"If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate"?
"Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be"?
Irony, mainly directed in the direction of religios, no you're right they are unable to supply any evidence, because of just as you say.
ippy
-
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
What people?
The gospels are not historically reliable — maybe even wholesale fiction — and you ignoring that fact will not stop it from being true.
-
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
What people?
The gospels are not historically reliable — maybe even wholesale fiction — and you ignoring that fact will not stop it from being true.
Fact Jeremy.....or your wishful thinking?
-
We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact. For all we know it could have been a fairy tale constructed by his followers. It is very strange that if Jesus was in reality the person he is said to be in the gospels, lots of independent historians didn't write about him.
Actually I think we do have an idea. The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction.
-
We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact. For all we know it could have been a fairy tale constructed by his followers. It is very strange that if Jesus was in reality the person he is said to be in the gospels, lots of independent historians didn't write about him.
Actually I think we do have an idea. The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction.
Yes Jezzer. Provide the evidence for that.
-
We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact. For all we know it could have been a fairy tale constructed by his followers. It is very strange that if Jesus was in reality the person he is said to be in the gospels, lots of independent historians didn't write about him.
Actually I think we do have an idea. The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction.
Yes Jezzer. Provide the evidence for that.
As has been said many times, it is people who claim the less than credible to be true who have to provide the evidence, which they always fail to do!
-
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
What people?
The gospels are not historically reliable — maybe even wholesale fiction — and you ignoring that fact will not stop it from being true.
Fact Jeremy.....or your wishful thinking?
Fact.
-
We have no idea if what was written about Jesus many years after his death had any basis in fact. For all we know it could have been a fairy tale constructed by his followers. It is very strange that if Jesus was in reality the person he is said to be in the gospels, lots of independent historians didn't write about him.
Actually I think we do have an idea. The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction.
Yes Jezzer. Provide the evidence for that.
I have done on many previous occasions on this board and elsewhere.
-
I have done on many previous occasions on this board and elsewhere.
jeremy, you have provided evidence that you regard as valid, but as far as I am aware, Jim and others have rather knobbled it by showing that it is invalid. Do you have any rather more robust evidence?
-
I have done on many previous occasions on this board and elsewhere.
jeremy, you have provided evidence that you regard as valid, but as far as I am aware, Jim and others have rather knobbled it by showing that it is invalid. Do you have any rather more robust evidence?
When and how?
-
When and how?
I'll leave jeremy to give times and dates to support his claim to have posted valid evidence. Regarding the invalid evidence, most of Jim's responses to jeremy on this kind of topic show that his 'evidence' is less than robust.
-
When and how?
Well, I'll leave you to 1) hunt out the examples that jeremy claims to have postd, and then 2) follow the trails that come from those.
I'm interested in what you claim was posted by Jim and others that you say you have an awareness of and that you also say 'knobbled' other claims - I don't recall this at all, so perhaps you should provide some details the rebuttal(s) that were involved: after all it may be that these rebuttals aren't quite as convincing as you imply.
-
I have done on many previous occasions on this board and elsewhere.
jeremy, you have provided evidence that you regard as valid, but as far as I am aware, Jim and others have rather knobbled it by showing that it is invalid. Do you have any rather more robust evidence?
Yes. I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.
-
Yes. I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.
Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.
-
Yes. I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.
Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
-
Yes. I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.
Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
I get it now - you're adopting the 'Hope strategy' :)
-
Yes. I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.
Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
Do you also know many non-atheists who happen to agree with you, and for good reason?
-
What apart from the people who saw him nailed to a cross (having been flogged) and saw him die and saw him stabbed just to make sure and put in a known tomb which was empty a couple of days later?
What people?
The gospels are not historically reliable — maybe even wholesale fiction — and you ignoring that fact will not stop it from being true.
You have never come up with anything to substantiate that claim.
-
Yes. I have provided it on this board and elsewhere on many occasions.
Perhaps you would care to provide times and dates, or thread titles and post numbers of such 'evidence'.
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
Please point us to one example. Thank you.
-
(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo.
The onus isn't on us to show that something extraordinary didn't happen - you have to give sufficient grounds to think it did, or you just have an assertion.
(2) Yet you have never been able to produce any evidence to support this suggestion, despite making it on numerous occasions on different forums and threads. The English 11th century leader Hereward the Wake has very little written about him but he is still regarded as having lived. He is mentioned in 4 documents - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Domesday Book, Liber Eliensis and - most importantly - the Gesta Herewardi. This last is thought to have been written between 1109 and 1131 by one of Hereward's brothers-in-arms - and therefore an eye-witness account. Even if we discount everything that occurred before the Battle of Senlac Ridge, that's still 40-60 years after the events. Why should taht be any more reliable than - say Mark's Gospel - which was likely written 30-40 years after the events it records and may have been written by someone who both experienced the events, and at the dictation of someone who was there.
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, from a vested interest group, making extraordinary claims in a vacuum of mentions from what would be considered the expected reliable sources of the area in that era. That combination of extraordinary claim, uncorroborated account and the lack of any sort of commentary from the areas that might be expected to carry such information given what we understand of that time period make your claim more difficult to accept than the accept historicity of Hereward.
That said, the prevailing opinion is that the Jesus myth is most likely based on someone real, there is enough evidence to suggest someone was preaching in that area who elicited some attention, but the supernatural elements would need an supremely high level of support for us to accept, and instead they have a highly questionable level of support.
O.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul. There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.
As for "tampering", yes, there was some, but the question is whether we can get back to what the authors wrote. Ehrman in his appendix to "Misquoting Jesus", p252 of the American paperback edition, wrote, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
-
Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?
NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either. I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.
Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.
I think that is a stretch since if there is no God then naturalism is then what informs subsequent speculations about 'the big questions'.
Vlad waits for inevitable stream of abuse.
-
Is there a reason why you put in a series of definitions by which atheism is not world view, Hope?
NS, I did notice once I'd posted that post that you don't regard theism to be a world view either. I would disagree, for the very reasons that these definitions express, thus putting atheism within the same bracket.
Ok, let's take them one by one
world view
1.a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
Atheism is not a philosophy in any sense nor is it a conception of the world.
I think that is a stretch since if there is no God then naturalism is then what informs subsequent speculations about 'the big questions'.
Vlad waits for inevitable stream of abuse.
No abuse, just pointing out you are wrong. You can be atheist bit not a believer in naturalism. Atheism is not a philosophy.
-
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
Please point us to one example. Thank you.
I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.
One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul.
How do you know it's independent? They may all have had the same source, who may or may not have been around when Jesus was.
There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.
Oh dear. The Josephus account is forged. The other accounts tell us nothing except that there were Christians.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
It's called the New Testament, I'm pretty sure you've heard of it. It has chapters which have different names. There are suggestions from writing style analysis and the like that these 'chapters' have different authors, and that some copied others and that many parts were edited after their initial conception. Ultimately, though, we have one source - the New Testament.
O.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul. There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.
Josephus and Tacitus don't talk about Jesus, they talk about a cult of followers of Jesus, after the fact. The Gospel writers are all in one source - the New Testament - of questionable provenance and with evidence that some of them copied others. You only have one source document.
As for "tampering", yes, there was some, but the question is whether we can get back to what the authors wrote. Ehrman in his appendix to "Misquoting Jesus", p252 of the American paperback edition, wrote, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
In the main, no that's not the question, because the overwhelming majority of Christians couldn't give a crap what the original might have been intended say, they have their opinion based on the modern poetic translation of the inaccurate Latin translations of the selectively edited Greek works which may or may not be the originals.
O.
-
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
Please point us to one example. Thank you.
I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.
One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.
When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out. For example, you will be aware that I have these last couple of days agreed with you against Hope (sort of) about textual variants and against Spud about Mark being the first gospel written. I have also disagreed with Hope over many months, on and off, about Noah's Flood being an actual, historical event.
Now, enough of your tu quoque. For the fourth time (from me), please point us to one example of your "many" examples that "The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction." as you claimed in #140.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul.
How do you know it's independent? They may all have had the same source,
Which can be said of any two accounts written from roughly the same time in history. Now, if you think they were not independent, please tell us why.who may or may not have been around when Jesus was.
Not actually relevant when determining whether certain accounts are independent of each othere.
There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.
Oh dear. The Josephus account is forged. The other accounts tell us nothing except that there were Christians.
Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
It's called the New Testament, I'm pretty sure you've heard of it. It has chapters which have different names. There are suggestions from writing style analysis and the like that these 'chapters' have different authors, and that some copied others and that many parts were edited after their initial conception. Ultimately, though, we have one source - the New Testament.
O.
O,
That is actually a pretty ignorant way of describing the New Testament. Those are not different "chapters". They are separate books, 27 of them with at least 8 different authors. Yes, it is highly likely that parts of Matthew's and Luke's gospels were copied from Mark, but it may also be that they got other stuff from another source, known as "Q", which would make at least 9 authors (if Luke and Matthew did a straight copy from there, if it existed). Remember that both Matthew and Luke have stuff which is not in any of the other gospels, known as "Special M" and "Special L".
And, no, it is not just "suggestions from writing style analysis" that we know that the books have different authors. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the only reason we think that? If so, you are the first person that I've heard suggest it in 37 years of discussing such stuff with people.
-
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, ...
Evidence please.
O's "singular account" is incorrect. There is independent stuff about Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and some dependent stuff) as well as Paul. There is also Suetonius (possibly), Josephus, Tacitus and so on from outside Christianity.
Josephus and Tacitus don't talk about Jesus, they talk about a cult of followers of Jesus, after the fact.
For Josephus, please see my reply to JeremyP above. Josephus does, according to the vast majority of scholars, speak about Jesus, although there are also very likely Christian insertions into the text. As for Tacitus, here is what Annals 15:4 says,
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".
Are you suggesting that this does not refer to Jesus? If so, why, pray?
The Gospel writers are all in one source - the New Testament - of questionable provenance and with evidence that some of them copied others. You only have one source document.
Nope. See my reply to you above. We have one collection of documents, not one document (apart from the external sources of course).
As for "tampering", yes, there was some, but the question is whether we can get back to what the authors wrote. Ehrman in his appendix to "Misquoting Jesus", p252 of the American paperback edition, wrote, “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
In the main, no that's not the question, because the overwhelming majority of Christians couldn't give a crap what the original might have been intended say, they have their opinion based on the modern poetic translation of the inaccurate Latin translations of the selectively edited Greek works which may or may not be the originals.
O.
And your evidence for this is what? Something you feel in your water or you read on some atheist website?
-
O,
That is actually a pretty ignorant way of describing the New Testament. Those are not different "chapters". They are separate books, 27 of them with at least 8 different authors. Yes, it is highly likely that parts of Matthew's and Luke's gospels were copied from Mark, but it may also be that they got other stuff from another source, known as "Q", which would make at least 9 authors (if Luke and Matthew did a straight copy from there, if it existed). Remember that both Matthew and Luke have stuff which is not in any of the other gospels, known as "Special M" and "Special L".
What we have is a single work. Various derivations have suggested that it is a composite of other works, and there's a fair degree of justification for at least some of those claims, but that doesn't change the fact that what we actually have is just that singular work.
That's the reality - that's not the entirety of the story, but bare bones facts in comparison to Hereward, we only have one source. We can reasonably deduce from this one source that there are a small group of associated authors, possibly from a wide timeframe, but those are deductions - the source is singular.
By contrast, for Hereward, we have two or three entirely independent sources.
I wasn't intending to impugn the scholarly work done on the New Testament, but rather to highlight why there was qualitatively and quantitatively different levels of confidence in the existence of Hereward against the existence of Jesus.
O.
O.
-
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
Please point us to one example. Thank you.
I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.
One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.
When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out. For example, you will be aware that I have these last couple of days agreed with you against Hope (sort of) about textual variants and against Spud about Mark being the first gospel written. I have also disagreed with Hope over many months, on and off, about Noah's Flood being an actual, historical event.
Now, enough of your tu quoque. For the fourth time (from me), please point us to one example of your "many" examples that "The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction." as you claimed in #140.
I think Jeremy was parodying Hope's tendency to refuse to give his 'evidence' by saying that he's done so before 'on numerous occasions' despite the fact that nobody else can remember him doing so.
-
O,
That is actually a pretty ignorant way of describing the New Testament. Those are not different "chapters". They are separate books, 27 of them with at least 8 different authors. Yes, it is highly likely that parts of Matthew's and Luke's gospels were copied from Mark, but it may also be that they got other stuff from another source, known as "Q", which would make at least 9 authors (if Luke and Matthew did a straight copy from there, if it existed). Remember that both Matthew and Luke have stuff which is not in any of the other gospels, known as "Special M" and "Special L".
What we have is a single work. Various derivations have suggested that it is a composite of other works, and there's a fair degree of justification for at least some of those claims, but that doesn't change the fact that what we actually have is just that singular work.
That's the reality - that's not the entirety of the story, but bare bones facts in comparison to Hereward, we only have one source. We can reasonably deduce from this one source that there are a small group of associated authors, possibly from a wide timeframe, but those are deductions - the source is singular.
By contrast, for Hereward, we have two or three entirely independent sources.
I wasn't intending to impugn the scholarly work done on the New Testament, but rather to highlight why there was qualitatively and quantitatively different levels of confidence in the existence of Hereward against the existence of Jesus.
O.
O.
No, we do not have a single work. We have the work of at least 8 authors and some of them have several works in that one collection. It is meaningless and silly to describe the NT as a "single work". It is not just a case of "scholarly work" arguing for this. No-one, that I know of (I haven't read all the conspiracy websites) has ever suggested it is anything other than the result of a number of different people writing stuff. There is far more than a "suggestion" that it is "a composite of other works".
This is getting silly.
-
I have done so before on this forum and others on many occasions.
Please point us to one example. Thank you.
I don't see you calling out Hope when he does the same thing.
One law for the people you agree with and another for the people you don't it seems.
When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out. For example, you will be aware that I have these last couple of days agreed with you against Hope (sort of) about textual variants and against Spud about Mark being the first gospel written. I have also disagreed with Hope over many months, on and off, about Noah's Flood being an actual, historical event.
Now, enough of your tu quoque. For the fourth time (from me), please point us to one example of your "many" examples that "The evidence suggests that the gospels are pretty much fiction." as you claimed in #140.
I think Jeremy was parodying Hope's tendency to refuse to give his 'evidence' by saying that he's done so before 'on numerous occasions' despite the fact that nobody else can remember him doing so.
Fair enough if he wants to "discuss" stuff with Hope like that. However, I've asked him a specific question.
-
No, we do not have a single work. We have the work of at least 8 authors and some of them have several works in that one collection. It is meaningless and silly to describe the NT as a "single work". It is not just a case of "scholarly work" arguing for this. No-one, that I know of (I haven't read all the conspiracy websites) has ever suggested it is anything other than the result of a number of different people writing stuff. There is far more than a "suggestion" that it is "a composite of other works".
This is getting silly.
I'm obviously not being clear enough. I freely accept that there is sufficient evidence to think that the New Testament is the product of multiple authors, I'm not suggesting that it's been written as a single piece at a single time.
What I am saying, though, is that as a work it's not externally corroborated. The earliest known fragments of any of those works we have are either already accumulated into the single volume, or it's indeterminate if they are or aren't.
That's an evidentiary difference from the structurally independent references for Hereward we have.
I'm not in any way trying to question the nature of the New Testament in this, but rather the 'chain of evidence' that lends strength to claims.
O.
-
No, we do not have a single work. We have the work of at least 8 authors and some of them have several works in that one collection. It is meaningless and silly to describe the NT as a "single work". It is not just a case of "scholarly work" arguing for this. No-one, that I know of (I haven't read all the conspiracy websites) has ever suggested it is anything other than the result of a number of different people writing stuff. There is far more than a "suggestion" that it is "a composite of other works".
This is getting silly.
I'm obviously not being clear enough. I freely accept that there is sufficient evidence to think that the New Testament is the product of multiple authors, I'm not suggesting that it's been written as a single piece at a single time.
What I am saying, though, is that as a work it's not externally corroborated. The earliest known fragments of any of those works we have are either already accumulated into the single volume, or it's indeterminate if they are or aren't.
That's an evidentiary difference from the structurally independent references for Hereward we have.
I'm not in any way trying to question the nature of the New Testament in this, but rather the 'chain of evidence' that lends strength to claims.
O.
Not externally corroborated? What in all its details? Of course not. In some of its details? Yes, it is, e.g. the (original) Josephus texts and Tacitus.
Not being externally corroborated does not make something "a single work". That is irrelevant to whether it is a single work or not. Here's a reductio ad absurdum for you.
Consider all the literary works (all written texts) ever written by the human race. Everything. There is no written work outside that group. Thus this collection of literary works has not been externally corroborated. According to your reasoning that makes it a singe work.
-
Not externally corroborated? What in all its details? Of course not. In some of its details? Yes, it is, e.g. the (original) Josephus texts and Tacitus.
Josephus and Tacitus are well after the fact, talking about the claims made by people on behalf of Jesus or about the fact there is a cult rising which follows someone called Jesus.
Not being externally corroborated does not make something "a single work". That is irrelevant to whether it is a single work or not.
It kind of does.
Here's a reductio ad absurdum for you. Consider all the literary works (all written texts) ever written by the human race. Everything. There is no written work outside that group. Thus this collection of literary works has not been externally corroborated. According to your reasoning that makes it a singe work.
If we found a folio with the entire works of Shakespeare on it, that would be a single work. If that's the oldest copy of those that we have, then it's a single work, even if we have reason to suspect that parts of it were written by someone else (Bacon, say).
It's not until we get independent accounts - contemporary reports of the first showing of different plays, for instance, that we have corroboration that they are independent works.
Likewise with the New Testament, there are structural clues that give reason to think that the singular work we have is a composite, but no physical evidence and no external corroboration.
O.
-
Not externally corroborated? What in all its details? Of course not. In some of its details? Yes, it is, e.g. the (original) Josephus texts and Tacitus.
Josephus and Tacitus are well after the fact, talking about the claims made by people on behalf of Jesus or about the fact there is a cult rising which follows someone called Jesus.
People tend to write about things after they happen. May I suggest you read the Josephus and Tacitus texts again.
Not being externally corroborated does not make something "a single work". That is irrelevant to whether it is a single work or not.
It kind of does.
No, it doesn't. If you really think it does, tell why it "kind of does".
Here's a reductio ad absurdum for you. Consider all the literary works (all written texts) ever written by the human race. Everything. There is no written work outside that group. Thus this collection of literary works has not been externally corroborated. According to your reasoning that makes it a singe work.
If we found a folio with the entire works of Shakespeare on it, that would be a single work. If that's the oldest copy of those that we have, then it's a single work, even if we have reason to suspect that parts of it were written by someone else (Bacon, say).
No, it is not. The fact that we describe the works of Shakespeare (ignoring Bacon for a moment) as works, plural, demonstrates it is not a single work. However, even if were the case that we describes all the works (plural) of Shakespeare as a single work, that is irrelevant to the NT as the NT is a collection of documents written by at least 8 people.
It's not until we get independent accounts - contemporary reports of the first showing of different plays, for instance, that we have corroboration that they are independent works.
Likewise with the New Testament, there are structural clues that give reason to think that the singular work we have is a composite, but no physical evidence and no external corroboration.
O.
This is silly. "Clues"?
You have just repeated what you wrote earlier. There is no evidence, internal or external, that the NT is a single work. Ever since any parts of it have been referenced by anyone, including before it was put together as one collection, it has always been known to be works by different people.
-
People tend to write about things after they happen. May I suggest you read the Josephus and Tacitus texts again.
Recently after the event, not years or decades.
No, it is not. The best we can say is that it may be a single work, but that if Bacon wrote bits, then it is not a single work.
To say that it may be a single work is fair enough - the fact that it's bound into a single volume adds a degree of weight to the argument, and the analysis detracts from it.
This is silly. You have just repeated what you wrote earlier.
At least I'm consistent :)
There is no evidence, internal or external, that the NT is a single work.
Except that it's typically bound into a single volume and has a title as a single piece...
Ever since any parts of it have been referenced by anyone, including before it was put together as one collection, it has always been known to be works by different people.
And that's evidence that you can use to deduce that it was probably an accumulation of earlier pieces, I'd agree entirely. That doesn't change the fact that you have primary evidence of a single work - a physical item with a name as that item.
O.
-
People tend to write about things after they happen. May I suggest you read the Josephus and Tacitus texts again.
Recently after the event, not years or decades.
Really. Let's look at the two Roman emperors referred to in the gospels. What are our oldest written sources for them? The oldest sources I could find were:
Augustus Caesar - Appian (mid 2nd century), Suetonius (121 AD), Nicolaus of Damascus (contemporary, but we only have fragments), Cicero (contemporary, but our oldest manuscript is 10th century AD, Augustus himself (inscription on a wall in Rome).
Tiberius Caesar - Cassius Dio (at least 174 after Tiberius's death), Suetonius (born 34 years after T's death and manuscripts from 9th century and later), Tacitus at least 68 years after T's death with single manuscript from about 850 AD and Velleius Paterculus, an officer in T's army, but no extant manuscripts).
Compare the above with the NT manuscripts. The oldest Tacitus manuscript on Christ is also very late, I grant, but there are hundreds of earlier NT manuscripts, ranging from fragments to whole collections of the NT.
No, it is not. The best we can say is that it may be a single work, but that if Bacon wrote bits, then it is not a single work.
To say that it may be a single work is fair enough - the fact that it's bound into a single volume adds a degree of weight to the argument, and the analysis detracts from it.
No, it does not. The NT documents were not put together into a single collection until somewhere in the mid to late 2nd century (that's a bit of a guess). So when Mark wrote his gospel first, we had a single work. Then, probably Matthew wrote his, but they were separate physically. Then Luke, then John. Earlier than all this we had Paul and others sending letters, all to separate people in separate locations. It was not a single work.
This is silly. You have just repeated what you wrote earlier.
At least I'm consistent :)
Yes, I'll give you that. :)
There is no evidence, internal or external, that the NT is a single work.
Except that it's typically bound into a single volume and has a title as a single piece...
So what?
Ever since any parts of it have been referenced by anyone, including before it was put together as one collection, it has always been known to be works by different people.
And that's evidence that you can use to deduce that it was probably an accumulation of earlier pieces, I'd agree entirely. That doesn't change the fact that you have primary evidence of a single work - a physical item with a name as that item.
Probably an accumulation of earlier pieces? As in 99.99999999999999999% probable.
It is not a single work. It is a collection of individual works. That does not make it a "single work", at least not in sense used in English.
Edited: Remember that in #156 you originally spoke of "one account" being available for evidence. The point is that we have several, independent accounts.
-
The Gospel writers are all in one source - the New Testament
The New Testament is not a source. The New Testament is a collection of documents from a variety of sources.
It is however, correct that the sources of the NT documents are, for the most part, unknown and it is not known how the sources relate to each other, except in certain obvious cases.
-
When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out.
No, I mean when he uses the blatantly dishonest tactic of pretending he has already posted the evidence when challenged on it.
Now, enough of your tu quoque.
You realise I was only doing it to provoke a response out of you and Hope and to expose your hypocrisy. It worked.
However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources; they (apart from Mark) copy other gospels; they include episodes from scripture reworked to pretend it is about Jesus; they have highly stylised literary structure; they include obviously mythical elements.
If you found similar documents relating to any other religion, you would have no problem whatsoever in deciding that they are fiction.
-
When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out.
No, I mean when he uses the blatantly dishonest tactic of pretending he has already posted the evidence when challenged on it.
That you will have to discuss with Hope. As it is, I don't read all of Hope's posts any more than I read all of anyone else's. Am I meant to be some sort of watchdog, vetting everyone's posts and responding everyone that I disagree with? I do appreciate that you yourself do point out other non-Christians' errors sometimes.
Now, enough of your tu quoque.
You realise I was only doing it to provoke a response out of you and Hope and to expose your hypocrisy. It worked.
Cobblers. I've explained my position above.
However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;
Non sequitur. they (apart from Mark) copy other gospels;
Another non-sequitur. It does not thereby make them fiction unless the bit they copied was fiction. they include episodes from scripture reworked to pretend it is about Jesus;
An example being? they have highly stylised literary structure;
Non sequitur. Highly stylised literary structures are not restricted to fiction. they include obviously mythical elements.
An example being?
If you found similar documents relating to any other religion, you would have no problem whatsoever in deciding that they are fiction.
What, for the reasons you gave above? Really?
-
Which can be said of any two accounts written from roughly the same time in history.
So you think it could be said of the letters of Cicero and Caesar's Gallic Wars?
Now, if you think they were not independent, please tell us why.
All the gospels except Mark are dependent on Mark, for a start.
Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic
What about the actual evidence? Josephus was never a Christian and so would never have written about Jesus rising from the dead. Josephus was actually quite a good historian and usually gave some explanation to his audience of what he was saying. For instance, writing for a gentile audience as he was, he would have explained the term "Christ" and what it meant for Jews. The passage in which Jesus is mentioned actually flows better if the Jesus paragraph is excised. Early Christians such as Origen didn't seem to know about the Jesus passages in Josephus.
Even if you only remove the minimum bits that Josephus definitely would not have said, all you have left is “there were Christians and their leader got executed”.
-
Cobblers. I've explained my position above.
So next time that Hope writes that he and others have provided evidence here and elsewhere, you'll be the first up to challenge him on that, will you?
However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;
Non sequitur.
Nope. It's one point amongst many that allows us to discount them as having any historical validity.
It does not thereby make them fiction unless the bit they copied was fiction.
Which it is, unless you consider magicking up enough food to feed 5,000 people as factual or casting out demons or raising people from the dead.
-
Which can be said of any two accounts written from roughly the same time in history.
So you think it could be said of the letters of Cicero and Caesar's Gallic Wars?
No, I was wrong. I overstated my case. I should have said, "Which can be said of many such accounts..."
Now, if you think they were not independent, please tell us why.
All the gospels except Mark are dependent on Mark, for a start.
Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic
To re-use a phrase, "Is that deliberately ambiguous?" Yes, nearly all the events in Mark are in Matthew and much in Luke, but there are parts of Matthew (Special M) and Luke (Special L) which are in neither of the other two gospels. As for John being dependent on Mark, the jury is very much out on that. I'd be interested to see which parts you yourself think of John are dependent on Mark.What about the actual evidence? Josephus was never a Christian and so would never have written about Jesus rising from the dead.
Josephus was actually quite a good historian and usually gave some explanation to his audience of what he was saying. For instance, writing for a gentile audience as he was, he would have explained the term "Christ" and what it meant for Jews. The passage in which Jesus is mentioned actually flows better if the Jesus paragraph is excised. Early Christians such as Origen didn't seem to know about the Jesus passages in Josephus.
Even if you only remove the minimum bits that Josephus definitely would not have said, all you have left is “there were Christians and their leader got executed”.
I've not claimed that Josephus wrote that Jesus rose from the dead. I've said (was it on this thread or another one, I forget) that there are Christian interpolations in the (main) Josephus. As I wrote in #166:
"Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position."
-
Cobblers. I've explained my position above.
So next time that Hope writes that he and others have provided evidence here and elsewhere, you'll be the first up to challenge him on that, will you?
If he is saying it to me, yes.However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;
Non sequitur.
Nope. It's one point amongst many that allows us to discount them as having any historical validity.
That is not what you claimed. Thank you for correcting your error though.
It does not thereby make them fiction unless the bit they copied was fiction.
Which it is, unless you consider magicking up enough food to feed 5,000 people as factual or casting out demons or raising people from the dead.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?
I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?
I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.
It is a reasonable question all the same, since there is the possibility that people could exaggerate or lie in support of a cause (or in opposition): therefore, it is as much a risk in relation to Jesus supporters in antiquity as it would be to political 'spin doctors' today (especially when the claim is a fantastic one).
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?
I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.
Anybody mentioned David Friedrich Strauss yet?
" D.F. Strauss rhetorically asks: “Is it conceivable that the disciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally forgotten the first, and have asked, ‘Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude?’” (Mark 8:4 and Matthew 15:33).3 Rather than telling us what really happened, these miracle stories were largely created later by an evolving church to make a statement about the spiritual importance of Jesus, Strauss argued. The point of the feeding of the multitudes with bread and fish was not to report what Jesus actually did on a particular day in his life, but to make the claim that Jesus was the bread of life who feeds his disciples with spiritual food in their own day."
(John W.Loftus)
That's a bit similar to Gordon's assertion that Jesus' later followers were "bigging him up", except that Strauss believed that Jesus was indeed the bread of life, dispensing spiritual food, and therefore the passages are metaphor.
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?
I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.
Anybody mentioned David Friedrich Strauss yet?
" D.F. Strauss rhetorically asks: “Is it conceivable that the disciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally forgotten the first, and have asked, ‘Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude?’” (Mark 8:4 and Matthew 15:33).3 Rather than telling us what really happened, these miracle stories were largely created later by an evolving church to make a statement about the spiritual importance of Jesus, Strauss argued. The point of the feeding of the multitudes with bread and fish was not to report what Jesus actually did on a particular day in his life, but to make the claim that Jesus was the bread of life who feeds his disciples with spiritual food in their own day."
(John W.Loftus)
That's a bit similar to Gordon's assertion that Jesus' later followers were "bigging him up", except that Strauss believed that Jesus was indeed the bread of life, dispensing spiritual food, and therefore the passages are metaphor.
What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
Come one now we know you love your dictionary definitions.
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Not trying to make up your own language.
-
What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?
I don't say that Strauss's understanding is correct, but for a believer (which I think Strauss was, in some sense), it would certainly seem more plausible. The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?
"[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
These words seem to indicate, as Strauss suggests, that the miracle story is a later interpolation. How that accords with the dating of the earliest manuscripts, I don't know.
The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "
Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)
-
The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
Do you remember exactly what you did a year ago, or two years ago, DU? Do you always learn lessons at the first time of asking?
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?
I get the impression from the other examples of his challenging the Pharisees, that he was pointing out to them that they didn't need signs - they knew the Scriptures too well to need to them.
The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "
How many tribes of Israel were there, DU? What is the Jewish number representing divine completion.
Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)
Judaism affords meanings to various numbers (and it isn't the only culture that does so). Its called numerology. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism
-
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
Come one now we know you love your dictionary definitions.
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Not trying to make up your own language.
What does "apparently" mean?
-
What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?
I don't say that Strauss's understanding is correct, but for a believer (which I think Strauss was, in some sense), it would certainly seem more plausible. The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?
"[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
These words seem to indicate, as Strauss suggests, that the miracle story is a later interpolation. How that accords with the dating of the earliest manuscripts, I don't know.
The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "
Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)
What ho.
It isn't "almost identical". It is by the same Jesus with (presumably) the same disciples and involves feeding a large number of people, but it is for a different number of people in a different place from a different number of loaves and fishes in a gentile area rather than a Jewish area. Blockheads? Maybe, but they were Jews and not at all used to gentiles being blessed by God. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the idea of Jesus blessing the gentiles was a bit no-no and it took some hammering home by Jesus to get them used to the idea.
As for Strauss's "metaphorical idea", that is fine, but why does it have to be at the exclusion of it being based on an actual event. Why "either/or" rather than "both/and"?
As for the other "curious texts" you quote, as you say the Pharisees are referred to in chapter 8 were there after he had left where he fed 4000+ and had sailed to Dalmanutha (location uncertain) so presumably they had not seen the feeding of the 4000+. They would likely have heard about it, so perhaps were saying, "Come on then, wise guy, do it again so we can see."
If was not important that Jesus was now blessing gentiles, why do you think he gave us three such examples on the trot?
-
The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
Do you remember exactly what you did a year ago, or two years ago, DU? Do you always learn lessons at the first time of asking?
Must be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I fancy that if a charismatic preacher had inspired me to leave my productive employment to wander around with him (leaving family behind in the process) and had just managed to transform a few scraps of food into enough to feed thousands, then I think I would have remembered it.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?
I get the impression from the other examples of his challenging the Pharisees, that he was pointing out to them that they didn't need signs - they knew the Scriptures too well to need to them.
The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "
How many tribes of Israel were there, DU? What is the Jewish number representing divine completion.
Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)
Judaism affords meanings to various numbers (and it isn't the only culture that does so). Its called numerology. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism
Yes, I know about numerology - decades ago I even half believed there might be something in it (I'm number 7, apparently) . However, it does little to enhance the reliability of the gospels as historical accounts if one is required to subscribe to a belief in such nonsense. The phrase "Gospel truth" would in my case be interpreted as "That which should be taken with a very large pinch of salt". An American Unitarian minister not so long ago wrote a study of Mark in which he claimed it was replete with astrological significance. No doubt it is replete with references to numerology and astrology. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that here we are not dealing with historical accounts in any sense.
-
What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?
I don't say that Strauss's understanding is correct, but for a believer (which I think Strauss was, in some sense), it would certainly seem more plausible. The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?
"[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."
These words seem to indicate, as Strauss suggests, that the miracle story is a later interpolation. How that accords with the dating of the earliest manuscripts, I don't know.
The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "
Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)
What ho.
It isn't "almost identical". It is by the same Jesus with (presumably) the same disciples and involves feeding a large number of people, but it is for a different number of people in a different place from a different number of loaves and fishes in a gentile area rather than a Jewish area. Blockheads? Maybe, but they were Jews and not at all used to gentiles being blessed by God. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the idea of Jesus blessing the gentiles was a bit no-no and it took some hammering home by Jesus to get them used to the idea.
As for Strauss's "metaphorical idea", that is fine, but why does it have to be at the exclusion of it being based on an actual event. Why "either/or" rather than "both/and"?
As for the other "curious texts" you quote, as you say the Pharisees are referred to in chapter 8 were there after he had left where he fed 4000+ and had sailed to Dalmanutha (location uncertain) so presumably they had not seen the feeding of the 4000+. They would likely have heard about it, so perhaps were saying, "Come on then, wise guy, do it again so we can see."
If was not important that Jesus was now blessing gentiles, why do you think he gave us three such examples on the trot?
Well, I thought you must be aware that I don't think the historical Jesus was terribly concerned about spreading his message to the Gentiles, anyway. There are certain texts which clearly indicate his reluctance to do so, and those gentiles who did believe in him were already interested in Judaism. All of which re-affirms for me the idea that these stories were literary constructs inserted to promote the idea that he had come to 'be a light unto the Gentiles' (and spiritual food for them). And Spud has kindly provided us with a reference to Ezekiel which reinforces the idea that these fables were deliberate constructs inspired by references from the OT.
I think you are being evasive about the reference to Jesus saying that 'this generation' should be given no sign
(or in another gospel 'no sign except the sign of Jonah'). These miracles are clearly 'signs', and his only reference is to 'this generation', which would include Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, not just the Pharisees. In short, mythology or metaphor at most.
-
"Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position."
I simply don't think that is true. It probably is a majority, but I doubt if it is overwhelming. Of course it is 15 years since 2000, so it might have been true then.
And what if Josoephus did write about James the brother of Jesus? How do we know it's your Jesus?
-
However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;
Non sequitur.
Nope. It's one point amongst many that allows us to discount them as having any historical validity.
That is not what you claimed. Thank you for correcting your error though.
[/quote]
So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.
I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.
-
Must be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I fancy that if a charismatic preacher had inspired me to leave my productive employment to wander around with him (leaving family behind in the process) and had just managed to transform a few scraps of food into enough to feed thousands, then I think I would have remembered it.
So, its a 'fancy'. Nothing solid, nothing related to several months' of living alongside a highly charismatic person who potentially does amazing things every day.
Yes, I know about numerology - decades ago I even half believed there might be something in it (I'm number 7, apparently) .
That's more than I've ever done. However, it does little to enhance the reliability of the gospels as historical accounts if one is required to subscribe to a belief in such nonsense.
But one isn't 'required to subscribe to a belief in such nonsense'. The Gospels were written to an audience that was made up of Jews and Gentiles. Both would have understood the concepts of numerology, so using those to explain certain truths to them would be fairly natural. That is why translations or paraphrases that have been written within the last 20+ years use other literary devices to express the same ideas.
The phrase "Gospel truth" would in my case be interpreted as "That which should be taken with a very large pinch of salt".
That would certainly match my approach to comments that you and others like you post here. They conveniently ignore cultural ideas that don't match your understanding or experience.
An American Unitarian minister not so long ago wrote a study of Mark in which he claimed it was replete with astrological significance. No doubt it is replete with references to numerology and astrology. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that here we are not dealing with historical accounts in any sense.
I notice you use an example of someone very much on the extremes of Christianity - Unitarians are not a mainstream group.
-
No normal person would forsake his job and dependent family to follow an itinerant preacher ... he would have to be a credulous weirdo to do it.
-
No normal person would forsake his job and dependent family to follow an itinerant preacher ... he would have to be a credulous weirdo to do it.
And which 'dependent families' would that have been? Remember that in 1st Century Palestine (and other places) there was no such thing as a 'dependent family' in the sense that we understand. People lived in extended family groups, with members looking after each other and each others' children. Look at the way in which many immigrants in the UK today send their money back to extended families in their home countries.
Think of the current migrant issue. Those who are flooding into Europe are those who have given up jobs and, in many cases, 'forsaken ... dependent family' (to use your words) in order to pay extortionate fees to people smugglers 'to follow' the itinerant preacher of economic improvement.
-
I think the gentiles Jesus interacted with were close to Judaism and were probably a group called the "God fearers"
Some Jews do believe in two covenants
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-modern-noahide-movement/
So maybe, among those Gentiles that showed an understanding, he would respond to but primarily he was concerned with his own people.
Rose, I'm not sure that a modern trend - as highlighted by your link - can be 'back-dated' in the way you would like it to be. Furthermore, your reference is to a group who have very little in common with Judaism by their own admission. There may have been a handful of such Jews during the 1st Century but I doubt - from what we know of 1st Century Judaism - that it was anything other than a very small sect. What needs to be remembered is that the reason the Jewish people were referred to as the 'Chosen People' had nothing to do with what they had or hadn't done; they were 'chosen' for a specific purpose - to be witnesses to the Gentiles of God's love for them. The Old Testament is a record of, among other things, their failure to do what they were chosen for.
I think it was Paul who started creating Christianity.
This opinion has been proposed by many people down the centuries, but without any evidence.
But there is something in Judaism that says about being a light to the Gentiles.
It is when they believe the " real" human only messiah comes, that Jews will then teach the Gentiles.
See above.
-
No normal person would forsake his job and dependent family to follow an itinerant preacher ... he would have to be a credulous weirdo to do it.
And which 'dependent families' would that have been? Remember that in 1st Century Palestine (and other places) there was no such thing as a 'dependent family' in the sense that we understand. People lived in extended family groups, with members looking after each other and each others' children. Look at the way in which many immigrants in the UK today send their money back to extended families in their home countries.
Think of the current migrant issue. Those who are flooding into Europe are those who have given up jobs and, in many cases, 'forsaken ... dependent family' (to use your words) in order to pay extortionate fees to people smugglers 'to follow' the itinerant preacher of economic improvement.
If the disciples left their home environment and progeny for the sole purpose of following Jesus, then as well as abandoning their wives and children, they lumbered others with looking after them.
As I said, a weird and selfish lot.
-
No normal person would forsake his job and dependent family to follow an itinerant preacher ... he would have to be a credulous weirdo to do it.
And which 'dependent families' would that have been? Remember that in 1st Century Palestine (and other places) there was no such thing as a 'dependent family' in the sense that we understand. People lived in extended family groups, with members looking after each other and each others' children. Look at the way in which many immigrants in the UK today send their money back to extended families in their home countries.
Think of the current migrant issue. Those who are flooding into Europe are those who have given up jobs and, in many cases, 'forsaken ... dependent family' (to use your words) in order to pay extortionate fees to people smugglers 'to follow' the itinerant preacher of economic improvement.
If the disciples left their home environment and progeny for the sole purpose of following Jesus, then as well as abandoning their wives and children, they lumbered others with looking after them.
As I said, a weird and selfish lot.
People going away ''on business'' has been with us since time immemorial, so I think you are specially pleading.
-
People going away ''on business'' has been with us since time immemorial, so I think you are specially pleading.
Rot! People on business leave provision for their families until they get back. I doubt there were many banks around for the disciples to do that.
-
People going away ''on business'' has been with us since time immemorial, so I think you are specially pleading.
Rot! People on business leave provision for their families until they get back. I doubt there were many banks around for the disciples to do that.
So where is your evidence that the disciples families starved or were not financially provided for?
If there weren't any banks how any body get by?
Len....You are just straw grabbing.
-
If the disciples left their home environment and progeny for the sole purpose of following Jesus, then as well as abandoning their wives and children, they lumbered others with looking after them.
As I said, a weird and selfish lot.
Len, within our own society, we have people 'abandoning' their wives and children in order to work on international aid projects for one or two years, or on oil rigs, or as crew on merchant ships. Are they all 'weird, selfish'?
-
Rot! People on business leave provision for their families until they get back.
In the first century, that provision would have been family, Len.
-
No normal person would forsake his job and dependent family to follow an itinerant preacher ... he would have to be a credulous weirdo to do it.
And which 'dependent families' would that have been? Remember that in 1st Century Palestine (and other places) there was no such thing as a 'dependent family' in the sense that we understand. People lived in extended family groups, with members looking after each other and each others' children. Look at the way in which many immigrants in the UK today send their money back to extended families in their home countries.
Think of the current migrant issue. Those who are flooding into Europe are those who have given up jobs and, in many cases, 'forsaken ... dependent family' (to use your words) in order to pay extortionate fees to people smugglers 'to follow' the itinerant preacher of economic improvement.
If the disciples left their home environment and progeny for the sole purpose of following Jesus, then as well as abandoning their wives and children, they lumbered others with looking after them.
As I said, a weird and selfish lot.
They were indeed selfish to abandon their families in that way. The weren't providing for them, as people do who have to work away from home. Sadly they were mesmerised by Jesus who probably had a charismatic personality. Jesus was definitely in the wrong to expect people who had family ties to follow him!
-
They were indeed selfish to abandon their families in that way. The weren't providing for them, as people do who have to work away from home. Sadly they were mesmerised by Jesus who probably had a charismatic personality. Jesus was definitely in the wrong to expect people who had family ties to follow him!
Floo, trust you to come late to the party and promptly repeat the precise same errors as Len has been making all day. You can't judge the actions of people who live(d) in very different cultural contexts to yourself according to your own context.
-
They were indeed selfish to abandon their families in that way. The weren't providing for them, as people do who have to work away from home. Sadly they were mesmerised by Jesus who probably had a charismatic personality. Jesus was definitely in the wrong to expect people who had family ties to follow him!
Floo, trust you to come late to the party and promptly repeat the precise same errors as Len has been making all day. You can't judge the actions of people who live(d) in very different cultural contexts to yourself according to your own context.
You can if they abandoned their family in that way. I doubt it made them or their leader popular!
-
They were indeed selfish to abandon their families in that way. The weren't providing for them, as people do who have to work away from home. Sadly they were mesmerised by Jesus who probably had a charismatic personality. Jesus was definitely in the wrong to expect people who had family ties to follow him!
Floo, trust you to come late to the party and promptly repeat the precise same errors as Len has been making all day. You can't judge the actions of people who live(d) in very different cultural contexts to yourself according to your own context.
You can if they abandoned their family in that way. I doubt it made them or their leader popular!
I can't see how a cheerleader of today's secular society which is replete with hundreds and thousands of single parent and broken families can comment on the actions of a dozen of the most special people this world has ever seen.
-
People going away ''on business'' has been with us since time immemorial, so I think you are specially pleading.
This wasn't going away on business.
-
Len, within our own society, we have people 'abandoning' their wives and children in order to work on international aid projects for one or two years, or on oil rigs, or as crew on merchant ships. Are they all 'weird, selfish'?
Yes, if they leave them without means of support.
-
Just shows how very ordinary the disciples were, doesn't it?
-
People going away ''on business'' has been with us since time immemorial, so I think you are specially pleading.
This wasn't going away on business.
Yes it was.......God's business.
-
People going away ''on business'' has been with us since time immemorial, so I think you are specially pleading.
This wasn't going away on business.
Yes it was.......God's business.
Does God pay a salary to support your family while you are away?
-
Yes, if they leave them without means of support.
And do you have any evidence that the disciples - who either worked within their family businesses or ran a dubious tax-collection business - left their families without means of support.
-
Yes, if they leave them without means of support.
And do you have any evidence that the disciples - who either worked within their family businesses or ran a dubious tax-collection business - left their families without means of support.
Do you have any evidence that these disciples had families or even existed?
Perhaps you'd like to start with a definitive list of their names.
-
...What ho.
It isn't "almost identical". It is by the same Jesus with (presumably) the same disciples and involves feeding a large number of people, but it is for a different number of people in a different place from a different number of loaves and fishes in a gentile area rather than a Jewish area. Blockheads? Maybe, but they were Jews and not at all used to gentiles being blessed by God. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the idea of Jesus blessing the gentiles was a bit no-no and it took some hammering home by Jesus to get them used to the idea.
As for Strauss's "metaphorical idea", that is fine, but why does it have to be at the exclusion of it being based on an actual event. Why "either/or" rather than "both/and"?
As for the other "curious texts" you quote, as you say the Pharisees are referred to in chapter 8 were there after he had left where he fed 4000+ and had sailed to Dalmanutha (location uncertain) so presumably they had not seen the feeding of the 4000+. They would likely have heard about it, so perhaps were saying, "Come on then, wise guy, do it again so we can see."
If was not important that Jesus was now blessing gentiles, why do you think he gave us three such examples on the trot?
Well, I thought you must be aware that I don't think the historical Jesus was terribly concerned about spreading his message to the Gentiles, anyway. There are certain texts which clearly indicate his reluctance to do so, and those gentiles who did believe in him were already interested in Judaism. All of which re-affirms for me the idea that these stories were literary constructs inserted to promote the idea that he had come to 'be a light unto the Gentiles' (and spiritual food for them). And Spud has kindly provided us with a reference to Ezekiel which reinforces the idea that these fables were deliberate constructs inspired by references from the OT.
Yes, I am aware of your opinion, though it is good that you reminded me. Yes, there are certain texts which indicated his reluctance to go to the gentiles in any significant way during his earthly mission, though not for his followers afterwards. Call me skeptical if you like, but it seems a bit off to dismiss stuff where Jesus says things which disagree with your conclusions, because, well, they disagree with your conclusions. A kind of "that can't be evidence for X" because X is not what Jesus taught. Do you see what I mean? Is there anything in Jesus' teaching which says that the good news should remain for the Jews alone?
I think you are being evasive about the reference to Jesus saying that 'this generation' should be given no sign
(or in another gospel 'no sign except the sign of Jonah'). These miracles are clearly 'signs', and his only reference is to 'this generation', which would include Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, not just the Pharisees. In short, mythology or metaphor at most.
I'm not being evasive on that as we haven't discussed it yet, have we (or have I just missed that post)? Let's look at this. In Matthew 12 Jesus uses this term, but I can't see that it has any reference to whether his mission and that of his followers later would/should only be to the Jews. What have I missed? If anything, Mt 12:41 is referring to gentiles repenting. Ditto the start of Matthew 16. Where it is reported in Luke 11 Jesus speaks of the Ninevehites repenting and of the Queen of the South (no, not the football team, folks), so, if anything, he is saying that (some) gentiles will have repented. He was speaking of ones who had repented in the past, but Jonah's task had been to take the message of the need for repentance and accompanying forgiveness to gentiles.
How does this show Jesus not intending the gospel to be taken to the gentiles? I really don't understand your point.
-
I think the gentiles Jesus interacted with were close to Judaism and were probably a group called the "God fearers"
Some Jews do believe in two covenants
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-modern-noahide-movement/
So maybe, among those Gentiles that showed an understanding, he would respond to but primarily he was concerned with his own people.
I think it was Paul who started creating Christianity.
But there is something in Judaism that says about being a light to the Gentiles.
It is when they believe the " real" human only messiah comes, that Jews will then teach the Gentiles.
Funnily enough I was listening to a podcast by Mark Goodacre on this very subject. You might find it interesting. See/hear http://podacre.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/nt-pod-41-was-paul-founder-of.html It's about 15 minutes long and, as always, is easy to listen too. Goodacre teaches at Duke University, but is a Brit.
-
"Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position."
I simply don't think that is true. It probably is a majority, but I doubt if it is overwhelming.
Like you, I have not done my own survey, but Van Voorst has and is an NT scholar. Judging by the bibliography in his book, he has done a lot of research. As we both know, a majority of scholars can be wrong on a subject, whether an overwhelming majority or not. Of course it is 15 years since 2000, so it might have been true then.
Do you have any evidence of it having changed?
And what if Josoephus did write about James the brother of Jesus? How do we know it's your Jesus?
Josephus refers to him as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." Which other Jesus called the Christ do you think he was the brother of and who was called James and was the leader of the church in Jerusalem?
-
...
So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.
I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.
If I have misunderstood what you wrote, then please explain.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.
If Jesus really did feed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, then it was supernatural and not "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Rather it would have been "The power of the actual influencing of an event by ... a supernatural force." That is the difference and thus would make it not magic.
-
...
So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.
I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.
If I have misunderstood what you wrote, then please explain.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.
If Jesus really did feed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, then it was supernatural and not "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Rather it would have been "The power of the actual influencing of an event by ... a supernatural force." That is the difference and thus would make it not magic.
No, it would still be magic, it would just mean that magic was real.
O.
-
Do you have any evidence that these disciples had families or even existed?
Perhaps you'd like to start with a definitive list of their names.
jeremy, perhaps it would be better to ask this of DU, who introduced the idea of leaving family behind - "leave my productive employment to wander around with him (leaving family behind in the process)" [post #197] or Len who introduced the idea of leaving a 'dependent' family (and therefore by implication 'without support') [post #203].
I would just note here that there are references to a number of disciples' family members in the Gospel record. I wonder whether either of the two above can find them.
-
...
So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.
I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.
If I have misunderstood what you wrote, then please explain.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.
If Jesus really did feed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, then it was supernatural and not "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Rather it would have been "The power of the actual influencing of an event by ... a supernatural force." That is the difference and thus would make it not magic.
No, it would still be magic, it would just mean that magic was real.
Agree, apparently means:
as far as one knows or can see.
-
...
So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.
I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.
If I have misunderstood what you wrote, then please explain.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.
If Jesus really did feed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, then it was supernatural and not "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Rather it would have been "The power of the actual influencing of an event by ... a supernatural force." That is the difference and thus would make it not magic.
No, it would still be magic, it would just mean that magic was real.
O.
Look up what "apparently" means.
-
...
So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.
I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.
If I have misunderstood what you wrote, then please explain.
No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.
You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.
If Jesus really did feed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, then it was supernatural and not "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Rather it would have been "The power of the actual influencing of an event by ... a supernatural force." That is the difference and thus would make it not magic.
No, it would still be magic, it would just mean that magic was real.
Agree, apparently means:
as far as one knows or can see.
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
-
Where are we looking up what "magic" and "apparently" mean? The OED or Stanford Uni?
-
I thought that there was a difference between magic as illusion, as practised in stage shows, and magic for real (or believed to be real), as practised in some religions. My memory is that there were Jewish magicians in Old Testament times, and afterwards, not sure of the dates:
"There are a variety of different types of Jewish textual sources that can be used for the study of Jewish magic in Late Antiquity, these range from rabbinical rulings, aggadic folk tales, magical recipe books as well as actual amulets which are the practical products of magical praxis. There is a wealth of evidence to show that in the Near East the practice of magic was wide-spread, so much so that some scholars claim it to have been an expression of popular religion that was common to all the peoples of the region."
(Uni of Southampton course on Early Jewish Magic).
PS. forgot to say that 'Ancient Jewish Magic' is quite a hot topic at the moment, there are books coming out on it, and even courses as above.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
-
Where are we looking up what "magic" and "apparently" mean? The OED or Stanford Uni?
Very good, sir.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
Yes but we know the word can be used derogatory and funnily enough by people of an inferior technology describing a superior technology..... How are you using the term.
-
There is a book, 'Jesus the Magician' (Morton Smith), but it seems to have a poor reputation.
Geza Vermes, the foremost Jewish writer on Jesus, links Jesus to Jewish traditions of healing, exorcism, and 'charismatic prophecy', but not Jewish magic. In fact, he uses the term 'hasid' which I suppose means holy man.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
Yes but we know the word can be used derogatory and funnily enough by people of an inferior technology describing a superior technology..... How are you using the term.
It could be used that way glad you agree. I think Alien is taking it in a derogatory way as he believes Jesus did magic, not the way he likes to spin things. :)
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
No, but the difference between 'appearing' to affect reality by supernatural effects and 'actually' affecting reality by supernatural effects is the difference between the 'appearance' of magic and 'actual' magic.
O.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
No, but the difference between 'appearing' to affect reality by supernatural effects and 'actually' affecting reality by supernatural effects is the difference between the 'appearance' of magic and 'actual' magic.
O.
No, the definition of OED, which was quoted here, was, "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Thus you would be taking about
1) The appearance of the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
2) Actually having the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
(My italics throughout).
Did you really mean to say that?
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
No, but the difference between 'appearing' to affect reality by supernatural effects and 'actually' affecting reality by supernatural effects is the difference between the 'appearance' of magic and 'actual' magic.
O.
No, the definition of OED, which was quoted here, was, "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Thus you would be taking about
1) The appearance of the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
2) Actually having the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
(My italics throughout).
Did you really mean to say that?
That's because the OED understands that magic isn't real, and I understand that the Jesus depicted in the New Testament wasn't real.
I meant to say that if Jesus had done the work as depicted it would mean that magic was real, and that would be magic. As it is, I don't think he did it, and therefore magic is still a myth.
O.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
Evasion noted.
-
(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo.
The onus isn't on us to show that something extraordinary didn't happen - you have to give sufficient grounds to think it did, or you just have an assertion.
The onus is on you to find out for yourself what if anything did happen.
You won't find that asking others to provide proof of what they believe because faith is an individual matter whatever form it takes.
You have to provide your own proof to show what you believe is anything but freewill choice on your part by just choosing without any personal investigation or evidence what you believe.
So stop asking others to provide what you have to decide for yourself.
(2) Yet you have never been able to produce any evidence to support this suggestion, despite making it on numerous occasions on different forums and threads. The English 11th century leader Hereward the Wake has very little written about him but he is still regarded as having lived. He is mentioned in 4 documents - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Domesday Book, Liber Eliensis and - most importantly - the Gesta Herewardi. This last is thought to have been written between 1109 and 1131 by one of Hereward's brothers-in-arms - and therefore an eye-witness account. Even if we discount everything that occurred before the Battle of Senlac Ridge, that's still 40-60 years after the events. Why should taht be any more reliable than - say Mark's Gospel - which was likely written 30-40 years after the events it records and may have been written by someone who both experienced the events, and at the dictation of someone who was there.
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, from a vested interest group, making extraordinary claims in a vacuum of mentions from what would be considered the expected reliable sources of the area in that era. That combination of extraordinary claim, uncorroborated account and the lack of any sort of commentary from the areas that might be expected to carry such information given what we understand of that time period make your claim more difficult to accept than the accept historicity of Hereward.
That said, the prevailing opinion is that the Jesus myth is most likely based on someone real, there is enough evidence to suggest someone was preaching in that area who elicited some attention, but the supernatural elements would need an supremely high level of support for us to accept, and instead they have a highly questionable level of support.
O.
[/quote]
I think we both know Jesus was NEVER a myth. And the truth is that all history is irrelevant when it comes to proof which is in written form as to being acceptble as true.
Even then the above with the exception of Christ is not really anything to ague with against or for Christ. Because Christ is part of the individuals truth and what is more important the truth from God.
If you said you can understand all the scientific details however small which enabled a man to walk on the moon then you would be lying.
How we reason and we determine proof are two different things.
For instance:- Jesus being sent by God, how do we determine this...
He who sends is greater than he who is sent.
Jesus always makes God the centre of the praise and worship.
If you love me then you will keep my commandments. Those commandments were:-
Matthew 22:37-40King James Version (KJV)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
Jesus teaching by example and in his commands that to love God as he did with all your being is how you show love for Jesus. He does not request man love Jesus Christ with all their being but they Love God with everything. Hence Jesus was not and never has been the one to worship as God or to love as God. You can only love Christ by following his example and loving God first.
Only the anti-christ the man of perdition would claim to be God or put himself above all that is called God. Christ did NOT do this.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
A lot of people say that Jesus had given 50 commands but he made it plain that these two summed up all the laws and teachings of the Prophets.
Furthermore God taught that the new covenant would be as Jeremiah 31:31-34.
His words within us. The Holy Spirit makes this possible.
To you... you would not fathom this when reading the bible. Because your search isn't for truth to make the change in your life. You don't feel you need God and don't want him in your life because all you can see is this life. But there is a next life and you need to make decisions where you want to spend that life and if the search for the truth is really worth it. I don't mean adopting a belief, that won't save you. I am on about sincerely searching for the truth because it will make the change for you.
-
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
Sass, you aren't the only person to have made this claim, so this isn't a personal response as such. There is no record of Hereward having been king - in England or anywhere else. He is recorded as having been a leader of a freedom struggle during the time of William the Conqueror, as well as being declared an outlaw by Edward the Confessor.
My point was that the earliest mention of him was some 45 years after the Norman Conquest of England and perhaps 55 years after his being declared an outlaw. Despite the very sketchy written information about him, few if any of us regard him as being a mythical person. There are a few here who seem to regard Jesus - evidence for whom dates to about 10 years after his death and possible resurrection - as no more than a mythical being. That seems to me to be double standards.
-
The onus is on you to find out for yourself what if anything did happen. You won't find that asking others to provide proof of what they believe because faith is an individual matter whatever form it takes.
No, the onus is not on me to prove or disprove anything, I'm not the one making the claim. Christians are alleging Jesus rose from the dead and performed miracles, it's incumbent on them to provide sufficient evidence or I can simply dismiss the claim, just like I dismiss claims of Allah, Zeus, Thor and Thetans.
You have to provide your own proof to show what you believe is anything but freewill choice on your part by just choosing without any personal investigation or evidence what you believe.
You haven't even shown that free will is a valid concept, and that at least has an evidentiary basis to work on.
I think we both know Jesus was NEVER a myth. And the truth is that all history is irrelevant when it comes to proof which is in written form as to being acceptble as true.
No, we don't both know this. You think you know this, but you're wrong. You believe this, that I'll happily accept. All history is provisional, the more distant the history the more provisional.
Even then the above with the exception of Christ is not really anything to ague with against or for Christ. Because Christ is part of the individuals truth and what is more important the truth from God.
You appear to have a different understanding of 'truth' to me. To me 'truth' is a verified, sound judgement, not merely a fervently held belief.
If you said you can understand all the scientific details however small which enabled a man to walk on the moon then you would be lying.
My degree in aeronautical engineering would suggest that you're wrong - maybe this is another of your 'truths'.
How we reason and we determine proof are two different things.
How we reason is simple. Whether we reason when we decide what we accept as proof is a different thing, I'll grant you that.
For instance:- Jesus being sent by God, how do we determine this...
We don't need to determine this until you can demonstrate a reason to think that it's true.
Jesus always makes God the centre of the praise and worship.
Whomever writes the stories about Jesus depicts him as making God the centre of praise and worship, but then whomever writes the stories about Harry Potter makes family and friendship the focal points...
If you love me then you will keep my commandments. Those commandments were:-
Matthew 22:37-40King James Version (KJV)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
Jesus teaching by example and in his commands that to love God as he did with all your being is how you show love for Jesus. He does not request man love Jesus Christ with all their being but they Love God with everything. Hence Jesus was not and never has been the one to worship as God or to love as God. You can only love Christ by following his example and loving God first.
Why are you continuing to cite scripture at me when I've already explained that I see no reason to give it any more credence than any other ancient text?
To you... you would not fathom this when reading the bible. Because your search isn't for truth to make the change in your life. You don't feel you need God and don't want him in your life because all you can see is this life.
Right. And...?
But there is a next life and you need to make decisions where you want to spend that life and if the search for the truth is really worth it. I don't mean adopting a belief, that won't save you. I am on about sincerely searching for the truth because it will make the change for you.
There's no evidence for a 'next life', and no reason to think that anything that could be considered 'me' has any way of continuing beyond the degradation of the brain-patterns that currently manifest as my consciousness. I do sincerely search for the truth, I just don't accept wild stories without basis because they make me feel better about things.
I have one life, and I focus on living it well - enjoying it where I can, tolerating it when I can't, appreciating it for the opportunity it is throughout, and attempting to ensure that everyone else can do the same. That's not a lack of sincerity preventing me from accepting the stories of gods and Jesus, it's a lack of credulity.
O.
-
(1) But nor do we know that it didn't, Floo.
The onus isn't on us to show that something extraordinary didn't happen - you have to give sufficient grounds to think it did, or you just have an assertion.
The onus is on you to find out for yourself what if anything did happen.
You won't find that asking others to provide proof of what they believe because faith is an individual matter whatever form it takes.
You have to provide your own proof to show what you believe is anything but freewill choice on your part by just choosing without any personal investigation or evidence what you believe.
So stop asking others to provide what you have to decide for yourself.
(2) Yet you have never been able to produce any evidence to support this suggestion, despite making it on numerous occasions on different forums and threads. The English 11th century leader Hereward the Wake has very little written about him but he is still regarded as having lived. He is mentioned in 4 documents - the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the Domesday Book, Liber Eliensis and - most importantly - the Gesta Herewardi. This last is thought to have been written between 1109 and 1131 by one of Hereward's brothers-in-arms - and therefore an eye-witness account. Even if we discount everything that occurred before the Battle of Senlac Ridge, that's still 40-60 years after the events. Why should taht be any more reliable than - say Mark's Gospel - which was likely written 30-40 years after the events it records and may have been written by someone who both experienced the events, and at the dictation of someone who was there.
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
By contrast you have a singular account, with evidence of subsequent tampering, from a vested interest group, making extraordinary claims in a vacuum of mentions from what would be considered the expected reliable sources of the area in that era. That combination of extraordinary claim, uncorroborated account and the lack of any sort of commentary from the areas that might be expected to carry such information given what we understand of that time period make your claim more difficult to accept than the accept historicity of Hereward.
That said, the prevailing opinion is that the Jesus myth is most likely based on someone real, there is enough evidence to suggest someone was preaching in that area who elicited some attention, but the supernatural elements would need an supremely high level of support for us to accept, and instead they have a highly questionable level of support.
O.
I think we both know Jesus was NEVER a myth. And the truth is that all history is irrelevant when it comes to proof which is in written form as to being acceptble as true.
Even then the above with the exception of Christ is not really anything to ague with against or for Christ. Because Christ is part of the individuals truth and what is more important the truth from God.
If you said you can understand all the scientific details however small which enabled a man to walk on the moon then you would be lying.
How we reason and we determine proof are two different things.
For instance:- Jesus being sent by God, how do we determine this...
He who sends is greater than he who is sent.
Jesus always makes God the centre of the praise and worship.
If you love me then you will keep my commandments. Those commandments were:-
Matthew 22:37-40King James Version (KJV)
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
Jesus teaching by example and in his commands that to love God as he did with all your being is how you show love for Jesus. He does not request man love Jesus Christ with all their being but they Love God with everything. Hence Jesus was not and never has been the one to worship as God or to love as God. You can only love Christ by following his example and loving God first.
Only the anti-christ the man of perdition would claim to be God or put himself above all that is called God. Christ did NOT do this.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
A lot of people say that Jesus had given 50 commands but he made it plain that these two summed up all the laws and teachings of the Prophets.
Furthermore God taught that the new covenant would be as Jeremiah 31:31-34.
His words within us. The Holy Spirit makes this possible.
To you... you would not fathom this when reading the bible. Because your search isn't for truth to make the change in your life. You don't feel you need God and don't want him in your life because all you can see is this life. But there is a next life and you need to make decisions where you want to spend that life and if the search for the truth is really worth it. I don't mean adopting a belief, that won't save you. I am on about sincerely searching for the truth because it will make the change for you.
[/quote]
Funny that a number of Christians on this forum don't accept your version of the elusive 'truth'! ::)
-
No he doesn't, because he has taken the focus off God when Christianity askes people to believe in Jesus as some sort of divine entity and that your being saved relies heavily on a belief in Jesus as opposed to "just" a faith in God.
Which is problematic in itself since Jesus is God. He was and is God made human.
"Which you are not doing because the focus is on Jesus and being saved not on God, Christianity has also rather assumed that everyone finds living forever as important as it is for them. It's not so. See above, Rose.
But if you don't focus on Jesus you are not saved no matter how much you love God ( or so the various groups of Christians tell us.)
No, the various groups of Christians tell us that God loved the world so much that he sent his only Son (ie himself) so that whoever believes in Jesus' action on and beyond the cross will not perish but have eternal life. Another indication that God and Jesus are one.
Yes he did, Christianity demands you believe in Jesus, it's Jesus that comes first as Christianity says there is no other way to God ... See above. ... ( even though the Jews and people seem to have managed before Jesus ) other than through Jesus Did the Jews 'manage before Jesus'? Perhaps you can tell us how they managed to fulfill the purpose for which they were chosen (selected)?
Which Christianity dumped from Judaism as being mindless rules, ...If Christianity 'dumped' any rules 'from Judaism' why does Judaism still contain them? ... anyway Hillel a Jewish Rabbi did it in one, it was the Jewish version of the golden rule.In case you haven't noticed, not only was Hillel different in his purpose and wording, not all Jews have accepted Jesus' version, either.
I do search for the truth but am not prepared to be bribed by the issue of eternal life into accepting someone's else's version of truth.And what bribe would that be? After all, eternal life isn't a bribe; it is something that occurs to all humanity.
The truth is that I find that Christianity has moved the whole focus away from God and onto Jesus and being saved, which IMO is in conflict with the most important commandment I'm glad it's only your opinion, Rose, because the apostles clearly didn't think like you.
Also if your whole being was focused on God, you wouldn't even be focused on the next life.It seems to me that the only people here who are concentrated on the next life are the non-Christians, Rose.
As I said my focus isn't on a next life or on a person, even if he is called Jesus. You cannot assume what matters to one person matters to everyone.
It's no use telling people their focus should be on God and then taking away that focus with bibs and bobs of Christian theology who's whole aim is to take it away
You clearly adhere to a form of Christianity that doesn't match the mainstream forms, Rose, as I can't match the type of Christianity you are describing with any that I know of.
-
Hi Hope
You believe Jesus was God, not everyone does.
I'm fully aware of that, but it is a key point in Christianity. The offer of salvation through grace is based on the understanding that Jesus and God are one. It is the mainstream understanding as well.
It's a circular argument that Jesus is God, you have to believe it to see it in the interpretations of the bible, as Christians do. If you don't believe it, you see something else.
Not sure that is true; I've come across plenty of scholars who understand that is what the New Testment is about without believing it to be the case.
Did the Jews manage before Jesus?
Yes they managed quite well and are still doing so. christianity seems to assume they are the purpose for the Jewish religion, which only works if you are a Christian. ( replacement theology?)
Not sure what you mean by "christianity seems to assume they are the purpose for the Jewish religion". I and many other Christians believe that the Jewish people were chosen for a purpose - namely to be a light to the Gentiles (Is 41 and 49). The story of the latter parts of the Old Testament is the failure of the people to fulfill that purpose. Many Jews will accept that. Another way to put that is that they didn't manage.
When you ask me how they fulfilled their purpose for which they are selected, you are assuming the answer is that Christian one, that has been circulating since the last few thousand years, that Jesus and Christians are the purpose, and the Jews were to stupid to understand what God wanted and so failed.
Sorry, but this paragraph points out just how little you understand about Christian understanding. As far as I am aware, your understanding has been circulating for about as long as it has taken since this last post of yours. I have certainly never heard or read it before.
Well there is another answer. Judaism is a different religion and Jews who follow it see it as having a different purpose.
For the answer to that, its best to explore Jewish sources
Which I have done plenty of times. Oddly enough, your chosen example ;) simply restates the Christain understanding -
This is the idea of the Chosen People -- a nation of individuals who have been given the opportunity to sense G-d's closeness, hear His truth and relay his message to the world.
(my underlining)
It's rather sad that Christianity seems to regard Judaism as some sort of failure.
Oddly enough, it was God who seems to have thought this, hence the arrival of Jesus
The apostles didn't believe in modern Christianity because in their day it didn't exist.
Why do you say 'modern Christianity'. What do you understand 'Early Christianity' to have looked like?
Eternal life is a bribe and it isn't given to all humanity, only those that conform to varying Christian theology and dogma.
That certainly isn't waht parts of the Old and much of the New Testament suggest. Rather they suggest that it comes to everyone in exactly the same that death comes to everyone. What differs is just how one experiences that eternal life - is it in the presence of God, or not?
I don't adhere to any form of Christianity.
Its why I say I'm not a Christian.
Yet, in several of your recent posts you have stated what Christans believe (or rather, you have stated some rather odd beliefs and told us that they are what Christians believe).
All those theologies are only something someone else, an ordinary human being, thought, to explain things.Do you actually have any proof that this is the case in regard to Jesus' teachings?
I prefer to think for myself, read Jewish sources, different things, make up my own mind.
Just having faith in theologies thought up by other people is just a cop out IMO.
I would agree wholeheartedly, which is why I don't follow some of the theologies and ideas that some here espouse. In fact, I tend to question the 'theologies thought up by other people' pretty intensely. For me, it isn't about theologies, its about a relationship with the Creator.
-
Not sure that is true; I've come across plenty of scholars who understand that is what (Insert:jesus is god) the New Testment is about without believing it to be the case.
Actually that was a topic of recent Bart Ehrman debate.
http://www.religiousdebate.co.uk/
-
If Jesus really did feed 5000+ with a few loaves and fishes, then it was supernatural and not "The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Rather it would have been "The power of the actual influencing of an event by ... a supernatural force." That is the difference and thus would make it not magic.
It should be obvious to you that I use the word "magic" in the "stuff that Gandalf does" sense and not the "stuff that David Copperfield does" sense.
-
jeremy, perhaps it would be better to ask this of DU, who introduced the idea of leaving family behind - "leave my productive employment to wander around with him (leaving family behind in the process)" [post #197] or Len who introduced the idea of leaving a 'dependent' family (and therefore by implication 'without support')
So you are not going to give me a definitive list of their names. You are running away instead.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
Evasion noted.
You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
Evasion noted.
You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.
I never said you were evading a question I suggested you were evading the point.
-
Actually that was a topic of recent Bart Ehrman debate.
http://www.religiousdebate.co.uk/
The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.
-
While "mainstream Christianity" continues to fuss and judge about theologies and be exclusive and make divisions in its judgements about who can and who can't have a relationship with the creator, it will always be about theologies.
In fact mainstream Christianity teaches that everyone can have a relationship with the creator. What I assume you mean by your comment is what mainstream Christianity understands by what might be a barrier to someone having that relationship.
-
Actually that was a topic of recent Bart Ehrman debate.
http://www.religiousdebate.co.uk/
The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.
So what is the 'cut-off' for time elapsed to make material valid. Noting of course that the gospels may have been written decades (even perhaps nearly one hundred years) after Jesus lifetime.
Is a document written 70 years after Jesus' death necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.
-
So what is the 'cut-off' for time elapsed to make material valid. Noting of course that the gospels may have been written decades (even perhaps nearly one hundred years) after Jesus lifetime.
Sorry, PD, but the most widely accepted dating is that Mark was written sometime between 60 and 70AD, Luke between 60 and 90, John between 80 and 95 and Matthew between 70 and 110. Perhaps more importantly is the dating of the Pauline material. (note I have included the debated material for completeness). As I said in my original post, none of the stuff quoted by Ehrman pre-dates any of the canonical NT documents.
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57 AD)
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Ephesians
The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
Is a document written 70 years after Jesus' death necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.
The thing is that very few NT documents were written 70+ years after Jesus' death. The majority of them were written within 40 years, and a majority of those were written within 20 years of that death and resurrection. I think that time difference does make a difference, especially when Ehrman's documents tend to restate ideas that had been refuted in the earlier documents.
-
So what is the 'cut-off' for time elapsed to make material valid. Noting of course that the gospels may have been written decades (even perhaps nearly one hundred years) after Jesus lifetime.
Sorry, PD, but the most widely accepted dating is that Mark was written sometime between 60 and 70AD, Luke between 60 and 90, John between 80 and 95 and Matthew between 70 and 110. Perhaps more importantly is the dating of the Pauline material. (note I have included the debated material for completeness). As I said in my original post, none of the stuff quoted by Ehrman pre-dates any of the canonical NT documents.
Seven letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars:
First Thessalonians (ca. 50 AD)
Galatians (ca. 53 AD)
First Corinthians (ca. 53–54 AD)
Philippians (ca. 55 AD)
Philemon (ca. 55 AD)
Second Corinthians (ca. 55–56 AD)
Romans (ca. 57 AD)
The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:
First Timothy
Second Timothy
Titus
Ephesians
The letters on which scholars are about evenly divided:
Colossians
Second Thessalonians
Is a document written 70 years after Jesus' death necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.
The thing is that very few NT documents were written 70+ years after Jesus' death. The majority of them were written within 40 years, and a majority of those were written within 20 years of that death and resurrection. I think that time difference does make a difference, especially when Ehrman's documents tend to restate ideas that had been refuted in the earlier documents.
I ask again (and happy to use your dates for gospels).
Why is a document written 30-80 years after an event necessarily more valid than one written 100 years after. I don't think it is that clear cut.
WWI took place 100 years ago. Are you saying that documents written about WWI in the 1940 through to the 1990s have to be more accurate and valid than those written now by virtue of them being nearer the actual event. If so I disagree.
-
Going on about years between docs etc?!!?
Have NONE of you seen the effects of Chinese Whispers in just a few mins ?!!?!?!?
Nick
-
The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.
Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books? Misquoting Jesus is a particularly interesting one. Also "Forged".
-
Going on about years between docs etc?!!?
Have NONE of you seen the effects of Chinese Whispers in just a few mins ?!!?!?!?
Nick
Exactly - once you have got beyond a couple of days whether a document is written 20 years, 40 years or 100 years after an event is irrelevant in terms of validity and accuracy.
Much more important is who wrote the document, what sources they used and, critically, why they wrote it. And that last point is so important. If the author is partial rather than impartial it is unlikely that the result will show anything other than bias.
So to go back to my WWI example. I think you are much more likely to gain an impartial and balanced assessment of WWI from documents written now than you would have done from documents written in either the UK or Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the fact that we were about to (or already at war with) Germany would have massively biased the ability of writers to be completely impartial when looking back at WWI.
-
Going on about years between docs etc?!!?
Have NONE of you seen the effects of Chinese Whispers in just a few mins ?!!?!?!?
Nick
Exactly - once you have got beyond a couple of days whether a document is written 20 years, 40 years or 100 years after an event is irrelevant in terms of validity and accuracy.
Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?
Much more important is who wrote the document, what sources they used and, critically, why they wrote it. And that last point is so important. If the author is partial rather than impartial it is unlikely that the result will show anything other than bias.
And, of course, both partiality and impartiality can cut both ways.
So to go back to my WWI example. I think you are much more likely to gain an impartial and balanced assessment of WWI from documents written now than you would have done from documents written in either the UK or Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the fact that we were about to (or already at war with) Germany would have massively biased the ability of writers to be completely impartial when looking back at WWI.
And 'balance', in itself, is a form of partiality. Could that be why the historians of the nation have been so keen to get the personal recollections of WW1 and WW2 veterans before they die?
-
The problem with that source is that BE has written several books which seem to rely on material that post-dates Jesus' lifetime by a century or more, as well as having dates that post-date the traditionally accepted NT documents.
Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books? Misquoting Jesus is a particularly interesting one. Also "Forged".
Yes, I've read 'Lost Christianities' from start to finish, I've heard him speak in a number of lectures (3 or 4 probably), and I've read various chapters from 'Jesus Interrupted'.
-
Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?
Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) where is your evidence that the instantaneous recall was any better then. The ability to pass on flawed recall might have been better in an oral tradition, but not the instantaneous recall itself.
-
Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?
Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...
experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?
-
Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?
Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...
experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?
It doesn't matter because you aren't considering how individuals pass on knowledge and how accurate that propagation is, merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.
-
... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.
So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?
-
... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.
So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?
In part. But of course this is critical, as even if the propagation of information from one person to another is faultless (which I would contest whether we are dealing with oral or literary traditions) the quality of the original information remains key.
If someone misremembers that the car that passed them was blue, perfect propagation merely perpetuates that misremembering.
And even within an oral tradition you need to understand what is being propagated - it is knowledge or beliefs/stories. The two aren't the same, although may be related (or not). And there is a well accepted difference between oral histories and oral traditions - the former being factual recall (whether correctly or misremembered) passed on to another person as being a factual record. The second being based on telling of traditional stories etc that may or may not have a factual element to them. Clearly the propagation of belief falls into the latter category, so even within an oral tradition the stories relating to Jesus passed on for decades and eventually written down may never have been intended to reflect factual historical accuracy, rather passed on as statements of belief through oral tradition.
-
Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?
Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...
experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?
Which, of course, the first century Roman Empire was, relatively.
-
Chinese Whispers in a literate society or Chinese Whispers in an oral society?
Given the huge amount of evidence that suggests that memory recall is often deeply flawed even directly after an event (e.g. experiments where a number of people see the same event and recall it differently even straight after) ...
experiments carried out in what context - that of a literate society?
Which, of course, the first century Roman Empire was, relatively.
Likewise 1stC Jewish culture.
-
Which, of course, the first century Roman Empire was, relatively.
Not sure what the percentage of the population were educated, let alone literate, but this wikipedia entry suggests a mixed answer to that question.
Literacy and education in the Roman Empire contributed to the social mobility that characterized the earlier period of Imperial history known as the Principate. Estimates of the average literacy rate in the Empire range from 5 to 30 percent or higher, depending in part on the definition of "literacy". Full literacy was uncommon, but written documents were ubiquitous, and they were used by a wider range of people in the Roman Imperial world than was typical of most ancient societies. Numeracy was necessary to participate in commerce, and papyri preserve complex accounting methods. Despite the high value Romans placed on writing, education was available only for those who could pay for it, since there was no state-supported system of schools with public funding.
A higher rate of literacy is indicated among military personnel than within the general population. Educated women were not unusual, and there was an expectation that upper-class girls would at least attend primary school, probably in the same classes as boys. Only an elite few, regardless of gender, went on to receive a secondary education.
A significant if modest number of slaves were educated, and slaves played a key role in promoting education and the culture of literacy. Teachers, scribes, and secretaries were likely to be slaves. The education of slaves was not discouraged, and slave-children might attend classes with the children of their masters. Educated slaves seem to have been more likely to be manumitted, and to achieve material prosperity as freedmen. The Classical poet Horace, whose work the emperor Augustus brought to prominence, was the son of a freedman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cynwolfe/literacy_and_education_in_the_Roman_Empire
-
Likewise 1stC Jewish culture.
Evidence?
-
... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.
So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?
In part. But of course this is critical, as even if the propagation of information from one person to another is faultless (which I would contest whether we are dealing with oral or literary traditions) the quality of the original information remains key.
If someone misremembers that the car that passed them was blue, perfect propagation merely perpetuates that misremembering.
And even within an oral tradition you need to understand what is being propagated - it is knowledge or beliefs/stories. The two aren't the same, although may be related (or not). And there is a well accepted difference between oral histories and oral traditions - the former being factual recall (whether correctly or misremembered) passed on to another person as being a factual record. The second being based on telling of traditional stories etc that may or may not have a factual element to them. Clearly the propagation of belief falls into the latter category, so even within an oral tradition the stories relating to Jesus passed on for decades and eventually written down may never have been intended to reflect factual historical accuracy, rather passed on as statements of belief through oral tradition.
Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, but what evidence we have shows this is not the case. Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.
Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither does his audience — the early church.
-
Likewise 1stC Jewish culture.
Evidence?
The Torah - the which contains the key information that defines Jewish culture is a written document, and was through the 1stC and well before. Indeed the notion of reading from the Torah is a key component of the Jewish religion. That is a characteristic of a library tradition.
In oral traditions key stories etc are not written but are propagated only from memory and orally. That isn't the case in 1stC Jewish culture, nor as Jeremy points out Roman culture of the time.
-
No it doesn't Hope.
It teaches "everyone" can have a relationship with the creator if they buy into their particular brand of theology.
That's not just true for mainstream Christianity, but also Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as well.
The thing that qualifies you for that relationship, isn't Jesus, but believing in the theology of the group.
" mainstream Christianity" defines part of the theology that you have to believe in, as an example is the trinity.
If Sassy believed in the trinity, she wouldn't get called a heretic by other Christians.
That's because belief in theology is taken more seriously than believing in Jesus.
Wrong. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't know who they are. Thus if one doesn't believe that Christ is God or in the Trinity then one believe in another Christ, another God, that is, a false Christ and a false God. That means there is no relationship.
-
Wrong. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't know who they are. Thus if one doesn't believe that Christ is God or in the Trinity then one believe in another Christ, another God, that is, a false Christ and a false God. That means there is no relationship.
The 'relationship' is in the mind of the believer surely ? Putting a human face on God, as in the incarnation of Jesus, makes the notion of relationship easier, in a way, I get that, but ultimately all such faiths are about Man's relationship with God in one form or another.
-
No it doesn't Hope.
It teaches "everyone" can have a relationship with the creator if they buy into their particular brand of theology.
That's not just true for mainstream Christianity, but also Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as well.
The thing that qualifies you for that relationship, isn't Jesus, but believing in the theology of the group.
" mainstream Christianity" defines part of the theology that you have to believe in, as an example is the trinity.
If Sassy believed in the trinity, she wouldn't get called a heretic by other Christians.
That's because belief in theology is taken more seriously than believing in Jesus.
Wrong. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't know who they are. Thus if one doesn't believe that Christ is God or in the Trinity then one believe in another Christ, another God, that is, a false Christ and a false God. That means there is no relationship.
Well the God in question is the "Jewish" one. I'm not so sure all Christians know that one.
Yet they claim to have a relationship with him/her.
Seems to me you need to think about that before commenting.
What the Jews believe is quite irrelevant. When they killed our Lord Judaism essentially became nothing more than an apostate sect.
-
WRONG - TOTALLY RELEVANT as Jesus claimed to be THEIR, ie THE JEWISH, Messiah.
By their OWN given standards He was NOT !!! Sorry
Nick
-
WRONG - TOTALLY RELEVANT as Jesus claimed to be THEIR, ie THE JEWISH, Messiah.
By their OWN given standards He was NOT !!! Sorry
Nick
The Gospels themselves testify that the Jews didn't believe in him. They are therefore irrelevant, they are no longer his people, which ultimately was confirmed when God, through the Romans, destroyed the Temple etc.
-
Sorry friend but What Rubbish. ;) :o
You should now be a Muslim as Islam says all are lies about Jesus if you use THIS VERY weak line of defence ?!?!!??
-
Sorry friend but What Rubbish. ;) :o
You should now be a Muslim as Islam says all are lies about Jesus if you use THIS VERY weak line of defence ?!?!!??
Eh? I don't follow. All I'm saying is, that from a Christian perspective what the Jews believe is irrelevant, having put to death their Messiah and God. Judaism is apostate. What the Pharisees believed and what modern Judaism believes is not the faith of Abraham, who in at least two theophanies encountered the Most Holy Trinity (the three angels) and a figure of Christ (Melchisedech).
-
Friend
Have you ever read the OT??? ???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah? ::)
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ????
-
What the Jews believe is quite irrelevant. When they killed our Lord Judaism essentially became nothing more than an apostate sect.
I don't think that is right. An apostate is one who relinquishes his faith for another (or none). In the case of practicising Jews they are demonstrating their faithfulness to their own religion, steadfastly refusing to abandon it in favour newer claims such as christianity. The Jews think of themselves as a people with a special place in God's heart, and a unique relationship expressed through their Covenant, something which cannot be superseded or replaced. You calling Jews apostates is about as valid as Mormons calling mainstream christians apostates.
-
Friend
Have you ever read the OT??? ???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah? ::)
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ????
Yes, I have read it many times over. The OT clearly speaks of Christ, especially the Septuagint. The Jews even doctored the Hebrew version to counter Christian claims.
-
What the Jews believe is quite irrelevant. When they killed our Lord Judaism essentially became nothing more than an apostate sect.
I don't think that is right. An apostate is one who relinquishes his faith for another (or none). In the case of practicising Jews they are demonstrating their faithfulness to their own religion, steadfastly refusing to abandon it in favour newer claims such as christianity. The Jews think of themselves as a people with a special place in God's heart, and a unique relationship expressed through their Covenant, something which cannot be superseded or replaced. You calling Jews apostates is about as valid as Mormons calling mainstream christians apostates.
These are all things we have to decide ourselves, of course, but from a Christian perspective Judaism did essentially apostatise as I said, having rejected and put to death their Messiah and God.
-
So I was right when I said you're calling ALL Jews liars & the OT that you desperately need ironically, is doctored & fake.
Of course NONE of this can be used 'against' you or 'YOUR' version of Christianity ???? ;)
-
So I was right when I said you're calling ALL Jews liars & the OT that you desperately need ironically, is doctored & fake.
Of course NONE of this can be used 'against' you or 'YOUR' version of Christianity ???? ;)
Many of the Fathers testify to the fact that the Jews, in the light of Christianity, rejected the Septuagint which before was widely accepted by the Jews, and changed some of the prophecies, such as the "virgin" one from Isaiah. The Jews clearly understood the OT incorrectly, as our Lord himself testifies to in the Gospel.
-
... merely what they believe they saw. And note of course that what someone sees is neither oral nor literary but visual.
So you are taking the discussion onto eye-witness accounts, eh?
In part. But of course this is critical, as even if the propagation of information from one person to another is faultless (which I would contest whether we are dealing with oral or literary traditions) the quality of the original information remains key.
If someone misremembers that the car that passed them was blue, perfect propagation merely perpetuates that misremembering.
And even within an oral tradition you need to understand what is being propagated - it is knowledge or beliefs/stories. The two aren't the same, although may be related (or not). And there is a well accepted difference between oral histories and oral traditions - the former being factual recall (whether correctly or misremembered) passed on to another person as being a factual record. The second being based on telling of traditional stories etc that may or may not have a factual element to them. Clearly the propagation of belief falls into the latter category, so even within an oral tradition the stories relating to Jesus passed on for decades and eventually written down may never have been intended to reflect factual historical accuracy, rather passed on as statements of belief through oral tradition.
Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, but what evidence we have shows this is not the case. Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.
Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither does his audience — the early church.
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
-
So I was right when I said you're calling ALL Jews liars & the OT that you desperately need ironically, is doctored & fake.
Of course NONE of this can be used 'against' you or 'YOUR' version of Christianity ???? ;)
Many of the Fathers testify to the fact that the Jews, in the light of Christianity, rejected the Septuagint which before was widely accepted by the Jews, and changed some of the prophecies, such as the "virgin" one from Isaiah. The Jews clearly understood the OT incorrectly, as our Lord himself testifies to in the Gospel.
So Christians could equally have misunderstood the NT! :o
-
My mate Kevin, lovely bloke, Jewish, and never killed anyone, Lord or otherwise.
-
Friend
Have you ever read the OT??? ???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah? ::)
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ????
Yes, I have read it many times over. The OT clearly speaks of Christ, especially the Septuagint. The Jews even doctored the Hebrew version to counter Christian claims.
The early Christians favoured the Septuagint, which they considered inspired in and of itself, and the Jews doctored the Hebrew in light of that. Otherwise the scriptures, including the OT, belongs to the Church.
-
Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. (1)Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, (2)but what evidence we have shows this is not the case.
What evidence do you have for the truth of either of the claims in this post, Jeremy? I have regularly stated that the historical (chronological) order of events wasn't something that the Gospel writers were concerned with, preferring rather to illustrate their message by reference to events that took place. It is also likely that Jesus did the same type of miracle and teaching combo on more than one occasion over his 3 year ministry, so that slightly different locations or numbers or other details don't necessarily mean that they aren't legitimate records. What evidence do you have that this isn't the case?
Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left ...
So you dismiss the generally accepted dating of Mark's Gospel as between 60-70 AD - a period that also includes Paul's possible letter to the Colossins (scholars are split 50-50 over hether he authored this)
... and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.
So, ... do you think that the meeting they had (iirc they had 2 different ones if you look at the various documents) made no mention of Peter and James' experiences with Jesus.
Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither does his audience — the early church.
But Paul's audience was, to an extent, different to that of Matthew, Mark and John at least. Luke, as someone explicitly writing for a Greco-Roman audience, probably had, at least in part, a similar audience to Paul. Furthermore, some of Paul's audience would have already heard the Gospel from another source before Paul arrived on the scene, and even those who hadn't he spoke to long before writing to them. His purpose therefore, wasn't to go over the historical events that make up the Gospels again, but to take his audiences' existing knowledge of these and apply the lessons Jesus drew out of them to his audiences' lives. Not a single word of the Pauline epistles 'set no store by the historical accounts'; rather, they built on them.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
It would be interesting, if it was possible, to go for a week, say, without anybody being able to google about anything. I wonder how threads would develop them?
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.
From the scriptures, the ancient liturgies and Fathers.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.
From the scriptures, the ancient liturgies and Fathers.
Perhaps you could be more specific.
-
Friend
Have you ever read the OT??? ???
Do you actually know the criteria for The Messiah? ::)
By your very answers here, you're calling practically ALL Jews absolute liars & cheats ????
Yes, I have read it many times over. The OT clearly speaks of Christ, especially the Septuagint. The Jews even doctored the Hebrew version to counter Christian claims.
The early Christians favoured the Septuagint, which they considered inspired in and of itself, and the Jews doctored the Hebrew in light of that. Otherwise the scriptures, including the OT, belongs to the Church.
The Septuagint was a Greek copy of books originally written in Hebrew.
It's in Greek, so no one doctored the Hebrew.
There were some pretty poor translations from Hebrew into Greek , and my understanding is that non Hebrew literate Christians used it to attack Jews.
For anyone who is interested, the next link goes to Judaism outreach and gives the Jewish POV on it.
( well about the translation of Virgin anyway)
For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian
Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.
http://outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/
🌹
Of course they'd say that but the Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, testify to the fact that the Jews in response to Christian use of the Septuagint not only rejected it but also changed the Hebrew text so as to make it less Christological. One example I have given is the "virgin" prophecy from Isaiah which was deliberately changed in the He rew version.
-
Unfortunately, much of this is irrelevant. (1)Hope (and you to an extent) makes the mistake of assuming that the early Christians were keen to keep the historical story accurate, (2)but what evidence we have shows this is not the case.
What evidence do you have for the truth of either of the claims in this post, Jeremy?
The post you are quoting here already explains that.
Paul is the only early Christian writer we have left ...
So you dismiss the generally accepted dating of Mark's Gospel as between 60-70 AD
I'm talking about the period before the first gospel was written. I though that the fact that we were talking about the transmission of traditions orally made that obvious.
... and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.
So, ... do you think that the meeting they had (iirc they had 2 different ones if you look at the various documents) made no mention of Peter and James' experiences with Jesus.
Of course I think they would have talked about Jesus, but Paul never claims Peter or James as the source for any of his teachings. Whenever Paul feels it necessary to back up his ideas with some authority, it is always direct from the Lord through Paul by revelation, it's never "this was told to me by Cephas who was present when Jesus said it". Furthermore, the fact that Paul justifies his words by citing his own revelation rather than eye witness testimony of Peter and James tells us that the people to whom he was writing placed more weight on revelation than third party testimony.
Given the above, why would any of them care about transmitting oral history accurately?
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.
From the scriptures, the ancient liturgies and Fathers.
Perhaps you could be more specific.
Try the passion according to St. John or the prayers of the Good Friday liturgy of both the ancient Roman and Byzantine rites.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.
We cannot argue effectively without doing research: it is the quality and validity of the research that needs to be made clear, and that is not sneering, it is plain common sense.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.
We cannot argue effectively without doing research: it is the quality and validity of the research that needs to be made clear, and that is not sneering, it is plain common sense.
And on what planet is using Google to discover quality research a bad thing?
-
Also what is the alternative acceptable method?
-
Isaiah, of course, did not preach or write in Greek, and therefore throughout his life the word parthenos never emerged from the lips of the prophet. All sixty-six chapters of the Book of Isaiah were spoken and then recorded in the Hebrew language. Matthew, however, claimed that Isaiah – not a translator – declared that the messiah would be born of a virgin. No such prophecy was ever uttered by the prophet.
Furthermore, this contention becomes even more preposterous when we consider that the same missionaries who attempt toexplain away Matthew’s mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma by claiming that Matthew used a Septuagint when he quoted Isaiah 7:14 also steadfastly maintain that the entire first Gospel was divinely inspired. That is to say, these same Christian missionaries insist that every word of the New Testament, Matthew included, was authored through the Holy Spirit and is therefore the living word of God. Are these evangelical apologists therefore claiming that God had to rely on a Greek translation of the Bible? Are they suggesting that God quoted from the Septuagint? Did the passing of five centuries since His last book cause God to forget how to read Hebrew that He would need to rely on a translation? Why would God need to quote from the Septuagint?
http://outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/
:)
We would say that the Septuagint is an inspired work, a new step in revelation from the Hebrew in preparation for the Gospel. That does not change the fact that the Jews tampered with the prophecy in response to Christianity.
-
Yes, Google is useful. It just requires a little discernment.
-
We would say that the Septuagint is an inspired work, a new step in revelation from the Hebrew in preparation for the Gospel. That does not change the fact that the Jews tampered with the prophecy in response to Christianity.
The trouble is that it kind of feels like you are making it up as you go along now.
Anyway, if you read it in context, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a prophecy about the Messiah, it's part of a prophecy about the fate of Israel and her enemies during the time of the king Ahaz (also a messiah).
-
We would say that the Septuagint is an inspired work, a new step in revelation from the Hebrew in preparation for the Gospel. That does not change the fact that the Jews tampered with the prophecy in response to Christianity.
The trouble is that it kind of feels like you are making it up as you go along now.
Anyway, if you read it in context, Isaiah 7:14 isn't a prophecy about the Messiah, it's part of a prophecy about the fate of Israel and her enemies during the time of the king Ahaz (also a messiah).
Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.
I think it's called replacement theology, and not all Christians approve of it.
http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html
It has some links to antisemitism I think.
Certainly I've heard negative things about it.
It's not "replacement theology". We do not say that the Church replaced Israel. We say that the Church IS the one true Israel of God, which would include the OT saints as well, to whom Christ preached the Gospel when he descended into Hades (the Harrowing of Hell).
-
And no evidence of googling, or indeed a real argument so far about why it might be wrong
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
Do you really think ad_o got that by googling?
I don't know, but he should be prepared to say, if he has a source.
I think it's called replacement theology, and not all Christians approve of it.
http://www.gotquestions.org/replacement-theology.html
It has some links to antisemitism I think.
Certainly I've heard negative things about it.
It's not "replacement theology". We do not say that the Church replaced Israel. We say that the Church IS the one true Israel of God, which would include the OT saints as well, to whom Christ preached the Gospel when he descended into Hades (the Harrowing of Hell).
You might say that but you have no proof it is correct.
-
Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.
So not a prophecy of the Messiah.
-
Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.
So not a prophecy of the Messiah.
Indeed it is but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT. As Blessed Augustine says "the old is the new veiled; and the new is the old unveiled".
-
Which is a figure of something better to come, just as the old covenant itself was merely a preparation for a better covenant as the Apostle says.
So not a prophecy of the Messiah.
Indeed it is but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.
Why?
The Jewish people have been understanding their scriptures for thousands of years?
Who is to say they are not right? ( at least for them)
Because, as I said earlier, the OT itself was only a preparation for the NT. Otherwise you rob it of its proper context, which is Christ. The Jews disagree because they have a veil upon their hearts, that is until they should acknowlege Christ.
-
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
Sass, you aren't the only person to have made this claim, so this isn't a personal response as such. There is no record of Hereward having been king - in England or anywhere else. He is recorded as having been a leader of a freedom struggle during the time of William the Conqueror, as well as being declared an outlaw by Edward the Confessor.
My point was that the earliest mention of him was some 45 years after the Norman Conquest of England and perhaps 55 years after his being declared an outlaw. Despite the very sketchy written information about him, few if any of us regard him as being a mythical person. There are a few here who seem to regard Jesus - evidence for whom dates to about 10 years after his death and possible resurrection - as no more than a mythical being. That seems to me to be double standards.
Cannot compare Christ to this person when examining anything concerning mythical figures.
-
Hereward was a king, and had widespread noticable effects on many people, resulting in four independent accounts of varying unexceptional events that are not intrinsically questionable, and are fragmentary. Little is made of the those claims except that Hereward most likely existed.
Sass, you aren't the only person to have made this claim, so this isn't a personal response as such. There is no record of Hereward having been king - in England or anywhere else. He is recorded as having been a leader of a freedom struggle during the time of William the Conqueror, as well as being declared an outlaw by Edward the Confessor.
My point was that the earliest mention of him was some 45 years after the Norman Conquest of England and perhaps 55 years after his being declared an outlaw. Despite the very sketchy written information about him, few if any of us regard him as being a mythical person. There are a few here who seem to regard Jesus - evidence for whom dates to about 10 years after his death and possible resurrection - as no more than a mythical being. That seems to me to be double standards.
Cannot compare Christ to this person when examining anything concerning mythical figures.
Why not?
-
Indeed it is
Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.
but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.
Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"
-
Indeed it is
Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.
but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.
Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"
Haven't you the simple sense to realise, even when you make an arguable point, you undermine your position by casual gutter-snipe language?
-
Indeed it is
Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.
but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.
Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"
You have a very one dimensional mind, which is probably part of the reason why you do not believe. You know nothing of figures and types or fulfilment.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
Evasion noted.
You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.
I never said you were evading a question I suggested you were evading the point.
Which point? You told me you couldn't see the difference. Fair enough.
-
So you don't understand the difference between "apparently" and "actual", between "as far as one knows or can see" and "is the reality"?
In the context of 'Jesus changed water into wine' no I can't see a difference, magic is a valid term using the definitions you have given.
I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
Evasion noted.
You didn't actually ask a question so I wasn't evading a question.
I never said you were evading a question I suggested you were evading the point.
Which point? You told me you couldn't see the difference. Fair enough.
So using magic to describe the alleged actions of Jesus is appropriate? If so we agree, hurrah!
-
... is the only early Christian writer we have left and he insists that his gospel comes from revelation, not oral transmission. Paul met Peter and James but never once does he back up any of his own teachings by claiming they were passed on to him by Peter or James.
Paul's writing shows that he sets no store by the historical accounts that might have existed as opposed to his revelation and by extension neither does his audience — the early church.
What about 1 Corinthians 15:1-8? He uses terms there which were used for some passing on of teachings. Also in Galatians 1 & 2, what do you think he and Peter spoke about for the fortnight they were together? The rugby?
-
...
Of course they'd say that but the Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, testify to the fact that the Jews in response to Christian use of the Septuagint not only rejected it but also changed the Hebrew text so as to make it less Christological. One example I have given is the "virgin" prophecy from Isaiah which was deliberately changed in the He rew version.
Can you point me to more details on this, please, AO?
-
Always read jeremy's posts bearing in mind that they are the result of selective googling, and if one could be bothered (and had the time) it is easy to offer alternative views - especially if one googled as much as he does.
Unfortunately, there are a few others whose posts are similarly suspect - take ad_o's suggestion that the Jews, post-Christ, are nothing but an apostate sect!!
It's interesting that it is the Christians here that sneer at doing research.
Inc. me?
-
Indeed it is
Wrong. Read the whole chapter. It is blatantly not a messianic prophecy.
but then as far as Christianity is concerned the OT can only be properly understood in light of the NT.
Which is code for "Christians make up any old shit about the OT"
The nature of the sign to Ahaz was to be miraculous. This is the implication of the word 'behold' (Isaiah 7:14) and of God's offer: '...whether as deep as Sheol or as high as heaven' means 'anything you like'. The sign He gave to Hezekiah was to make the shadow on the sundial go backwards. So the sign of Immanuel should be understood as a virgin birth.
-
Can you point me to more details on this, please, AO?
Bumped for ad_o's attention.