Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Dicky Underpants on August 04, 2025, 05:20:01 PM
-
That leaves us no clearer on what is meant to be wrong and stupid about the trilemma and moves us back onto you "asking ze qvestions"..I should Co Co. I think Lewis just makes the comment that parts of the new testament read like reportage indeed, I seem to recall you viewing the NT as some kind of historical fiction.
What is wrong and stupid about the 'trilemma' has been done and dusted on this forum a number of times, and doesn't really need to be revisited.
Certain parts of Paul's authenticated letters do indeed read like reportage, but unfortunately totally contradict the claims made in Acts.
Reportage in Matthew? Reads like a polishing up and over- dramatising of Mark (I wonder why?) Whether Mark is 'reportage' is debatable. John? Now there's a challenge....
-
What is wrong and stupid about the 'trilemma' has been done and dusted on this forum a number of times, and doesn't really need to be revisited.
Certain parts of Paul's authenticated letters do indeed read like reportage, but unfortunately totally contradict the claims made in Acts.
Reportage in Matthew? Reads like a polishing up and over- dramatising of Mark (I wonder why?) Whether Mark is 'reportage' is debatable. John? Now there's a challenge....
Done and dusted. My recollection is that somebody managed to insert a fourth category which rendered the trilemma into a quadrilemma. So instead of Jesus being Mad, bad or right we have Mad, bad, right or wrong. However the principle still holds and that choice exists no matter how many euphemisms for being Mad, bad or right you put in....or you can prove me right on other things by 'dodging' the issue entirely.
On the other hand when one looks at the range of another alternatives they pretty much reduce to being Mad, bad, right or wrong. I think many atheists here think that Jesus was either a bad misleading character or at least a bit cracked by sincerely believing he was who he spoke of himself as.
I would also imagine that if it was wrong of Lewis to miss out the option of taking out the choice of Jesus being wrong. It's also wrong of his detractors to take out the option of Jesus being who he is claimed to be.
If there was anything I've left out here please feel free to include it.
-
Done and dusted. My recollection is that somebody managed to insert a fourth category which rendered the trilemma into a quadrilemma. So instead of Jesus being Mad, bad or right we have Mad, bad, right or wrong. However the principle still holds and that choice exists no matter how many euphemisms for being Mad, bad or right you put in....or you can prove me right on other things by 'dodging' the issue entirely.
On the other hand when one looks at the range of another alternatives they pretty much reduce to being Mad, bad, right or wrong. I think many atheists here think that Jesus was either a bad misleading character or at least a bit cracked by sincerely believing he was who he spoke of himself as.
I would also imagine that if it was wrong of Lewis to miss out the option of taking out the choice of Jesus being wrong. It's also wrong of his detractors to take out the option of Jesus being who he is claimed to be.
If there was anything I've left out here please feel free to include it.
Start a new thread. Please do derail this one.
-
Done and dusted. My recollection is that somebody managed to insert a fourth category which rendered the trilemma into a quadrilemma. So instead of Jesus being Mad, bad or right we have Mad, bad, right or wrong. However the principle still holds and that choice exists no matter how many euphemisms for being Mad, bad or right you put in....or you can prove me right on other things by 'dodging' the issue entirely.
On the other hand when one looks at the range of another alternatives they pretty much reduce to being Mad, bad, right or wrong. I think many atheists here think that Jesus was either a bad misleading character or at least a bit cracked by sincerely believing he was who he spoke of himself as.
I would also imagine that if it was wrong of Lewis to miss out the option of taking out the choice of Jesus being wrong. It's also wrong of his detractors to take out the option of Jesus being who he is claimed to be.
If there was anything I've left out here please feel free to include it.
Nope Vlad - there are many, many other categories even if we accept the basic premise (which is completely unsubstantiated - more of this below. So we can add 'misunderstood', 'misrepresented', 'mistranslated', 'not making claims meant to be taken literally' etc, etc, etc. All are, of course, much more plausible than the dishonest and incomplete list that Lewis wants us to restrict ourselves to.
But, and this is a huge but, the basic premise in the trilemma is based on an assumption that Jesus claimed to be god. We have no evidence whatsoever that he did - all we have are writers writing decades later, who were not there at the time, claiming that he claimed to be god. And even that is disputed. So at best all we are realistically left with is the notion that people other than Jesus claimed he was god. So the trilemma (or multi-lemma as it should be) really only applies to those writers and not to Jesus himself (as we do not know what he actually said or what he actually claimed). So are the late 1stC, through to the 4thC writers correct (in other words that Jesus was god), mad, bad, or mistaken on the basis that the claims didn't happen but arose as traditions and legends over time through mistranslation, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, hyperbole, deliberately made up etc etc.
So not the trilemma is a pile of junk. For Lewis to posit it suggest that he was either thick (unable to understand its limitations), deliberately dishonest (he understood its limitations but dishonestly proposed it anyway) or deluded (so blinkered in his beliefs that he could not get beyond his faith-based presumptions that the claims in the bible are true and accurate).
So there you go - a much more robust trilemma for us to get our teeth into - Lewis - dim, dishonest or deluded.
-
Nope Vlad - there are many, many other categories even if we accept the basic premise (which is completely unsubstantiated - more of this below. So we can add 'misunderstood', 'misrepresented', 'mistranslated', 'not making claims meant to be taken literally' etc, etc, etc. All are, of course, much more plausible than the dishonest and incomplete list that Lewis wants us to restrict ourselves to.
But, and this is a huge but, the basic premise in the trilemma is based on an assumption that Jesus claimed to be god. We have no evidence whatsoever that he did - all we have are writers writing decades later, who were not there at the time, claiming that he claimed to be god. And even that is disputed. So at best all we are realistically left with is the notion that people other than Jesus claimed he was god. So the trilemma (or multi-lemma as it should be) really only applies to those writers and not to Jesus himself (as we do not know what he actually said or what he actually claimed). So are the late 1stC, through to the 4thC writers correct (in other words that Jesus was god), mad, bad, or mistaken on the basis that the claims didn't happen but arose as traditions and legends over time through mistranslation, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, hyperbole, deliberately made up etc etc.
So not the trilemma is a pile of junk. For Lewis to posit it suggest that he was either thick (unable to understand its limitations), deliberately dishonest (he understood its limitations but dishonestly proposed it anyway) or deluded (so blinkered in his beliefs that he could not get beyond his faith-based presumptions that the claims in the bible are true and accurate).
So there you go - a much more robust trilemma for us to get our teeth into - Lewis - dim, dishonest or deluded.
I think we can take it that recasting the trilemma as a formal standalone piece of logic is more like the work of nerdy early 21st century atheists than Lewis himself for whom it was part of an accessible theology to be read as part of a context by mid 20th century people in the street who thought that Christianity was about cultural attendance at Church. In other words one needs to read it in context. That it may be part of a whole approach.
Your suggestion of finding new categories runs the risk of becoming merely a trawl through a thesaurus. That's why Lewis goes for the reductionist approach encouraging a focus.
Talking of which your post seems just like another exercise in flooding to submerge the possibility of the christian claims about Jesus just being right.
In summary then Lewis writes this knowing the context of scepticism about Christianity being anything more than a cultural relic a nd all your introduced categories reduce to the christian claims being either mad or bad in one way or another.......or right.
I think you might in denial over your view of wanting christianity to be eliminated...or your feeling that Christians are at the least 'slightly tapped'.
-
I think we can take it that recasting the trilemma as a formal standalone piece of logic is more like the work of nerdy early 21st century atheists than Lewis himself for whom it was part of an accessible theology to be read as part of a context by mid 20th century people in the street who thought that Christianity was about cultural attendance at Church. In other words one needs to read it in context. That it may be part of a whole approach.
Your suggestion of finding new categories runs the risk of becoming merely a trawl through a thesaurus. That's why Lewis goes for the reductionist approach encouraging a focus.
Talking of which your post seems just like another exercise in flooding to submerge the possibility of the christian claims about Jesus just being right.
In summary then Lewis writes this knowing the context of scepticism about Christianity being anything more than a cultural relic a nd all your introduced categories reduce to the christian claims being either mad or bad in one way or another.......or right.
I think you might in denial over your view of wanting christianity to be eliminated...or your feeling that Christians are at the least 'slightly tapped'.
First lets be clear - this isn't Lewis' argument at all - it had been knocking around for at least a century before Lewis posited it. And also as it had been around for a long time it had also been subject to criticism of the kind I stated for as long, and for long before Lewis' writing. So to suggest that criticism of this sort is a kind of Jonny-come-lately 21stC theme is total non-sense.
And the point about reducing options - well of course that is a reasonable thing to do for simplicity, but that isn't what Lewis does. Nope, he removes the options that don't fit with his prejudged conclusion and in doing so renders the argument logically incoherent, biased and dishonest.
Where I would agree with you is the audience - he understood that his audience were culturally christian and therefore would find it hard to conclude that Jesus was bad or mad, so by dishonestly providing only one other options (when many others are available) he forces people into his conclusion. So yet more dishonesty on his part.
-
And the point about reducing options - well of course that is a reasonable thing to do for simplicity, but that isn't what Lewis does. Nope, he removes the options that don't fit with his prejudged conclusion and in doing so renders the argument logically incoherent, biased and dishonest.
I don't see that since it is a device used by Lewis to get people to focus while making us consider if we think Christianity is wrong that that is because it's proposers are either mentally and intellectually defective or wicked.
He is in effect forcing people on the periphery to consider where they stand rather than flooding and diluting.
-
I don't see that since it is a device used by Lewis to get people to focus while making us consider if we think Christianity is wrong that that is because it's proposers are either mentally and intellectually defective or wicked.
He is in effect forcing people on the periphery to consider where they stand rather than flooding and diluting.
But he doesn't do that does he - he focusses on Jesus, not the proposers (who are let's face it unknown writers from the late 1stC to the 4thC. And he also doesn't provide the option of:
Wrong
Mistaken
Misrepresented
Mistranslated
Misinterpreted
Exaggerated
etc etc
Nope the only alternative options he provides are mad and bad.
His trilemma is logically incoherent, achingly biased and, frankly, deeply dishonest. And it isn't just me who thinks so, it is also such radical atheists as ... err ... William Lane Craig and the former Bishop of Woolwich, to name just two.
-
I don't see that since it is a device used by Lewis to get people to focus while making us consider if we think Christianity is wrong that that is because it's proposers are either mentally and intellectually defective or wicked.
He is in effect forcing people on the periphery to consider where they stand rather than flooding and diluting.
Since the thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll just add one more brief derailment, which amplifies a point the Prof has already made (and whose arguments I agree with entirely). C.S Lewis stated in effect what was his unequivocal faith position about Jesus, and attempted to fool people into thinking that Jesus himself had made such extraordinary claims. Lewis wrote "'You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God". Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any claim to being God - even in John's gospel, where all his statements are allusive. In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means), and affirms Peter's perception that he is "God's anointed one" ("the son of the living God", in Matthew's gospel is obviously a later gloss). So I don't see that anyone should immediately concur with the options that Lewis foists on us. "The Christ of God" does not mean God himself. Apart from the gross fallacies of his argument, he obviously didn't know his Bible very well, and apparently nothing at all of the biblical criticism that had been around for over a hundred years, even at the time he was writing.
-
Moderator note: split this from the Who wrote Matthew topic as it was as jeremyp pointed out a derail.
-
Since the thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll just add one more brief derailment, which amplifies a point the Prof has already made (and whose arguments I agree with entirely). C.S Lewis stated in effect what was his unequivocal faith position about Jesus, and attempted to fool people into thinking that Jesus himself had made such extraordinary claims. Lewis wrote "'You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God". Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any claim to being God - even in John's gospel, where all his statements are allusive. In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means), and affirms Peter's perception that he is "God's anointed one" ("the son of the living God", in Matthew's gospel is obviously a later gloss). So I don't see that anyone should immediately concur with the options that Lewis foists on us. "The Christ of God" does not mean God himself. Apart from the gross fallacies of his argument, he obviously didn't know his Bible very well, and apparently nothing at all of the biblical criticism that had been around for over a hundred years, even at the time he was writing.
Exactly - so not only do we have no evidence that Jesus actually claimed to be god, we don't really have evidence that those writing much later claimed that he claimed to be god. At best there are highly ambiguous vague claimed quotes.
Which is why Lewis' trilemma is based on a fundamental deception - effectively that Jesus actually claimed to be god. We have no evidence for that at all - these claims came much, much later and few serious biblical scholars think he did claim to be god.
So if Jesus never claimed to be god then we have 1. Mad; 2. Bad, 3. God, 4. Never claimed that - to which 4 is clearly correct. We can then argue until the cows come home at to whether much later apologists who did create the deceit that Jesus claimed to be god are mad, bad or mistaken/misinterpreting/exaggerating etc etc.
So I'd like to bring us back to the more robust trilemma - was Lewis dim, dishonest or deluded?
-
I would like to add 'twee' into the mix: I tried to read the 'Narnia' stuff many years ago but found it unbearably twee, and even as fantasy it made me cringe. As for his Christian apologetics, I read 'Man or Rabbit', and after I stopped laughing I decided that he was hugely over-rated.
-
I would like to add 'twee' into the mix: I tried to read the 'Narnia' stuff many years ago but found it unbearably twee, and even as fantasy it made me cringe. As for his Christian apologetics, I read 'Man or Rabbit', and after I stopped laughing I decided that he was hugely over-rated.
'tweemma'?
-
'tweemma'?
Yep - that would cover it!
-
In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means),
I believe, in Hebrew, that expressions like 'son of'', 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of', 'brother of' are figures of speech e.g. 'father of the sea' is 'seaman', 'daughter of the city' is 'suburb', 'mother of the arm' is 'forearm'. I suspect that 'son of the blessed' means 'cheerful'.
-
I believe, in Hebrew, that expressions like 'son of'', 'daughter of', 'father of', 'mother of', 'brother of' are figures of speech e.g. 'father of the sea' is 'seaman', 'daughter of the city' is 'suburb', 'mother of the arm' is 'forearm'. I suspect that 'son of the blessed' means 'cheerful'.
Which throws 'mistranslated' firmly into the mix. But again this isn't about Jesus but about those who came much later and attempted to create a narrative around his life to meet a specific agenda.
-
Since the thread has been somewhat derailed, I'll just add one more brief derailment, which amplifies a point the Prof has already made (and whose arguments I agree with entirely). C.S Lewis stated in effect what was his unequivocal faith position about Jesus, and attempted to fool people into thinking that Jesus himself had made such extraordinary claims. Lewis wrote "'You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God". Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus make any claim to being God - even in John's gospel, where all his statements are allusive. In the synoptics, he admits to being "the son of the blessed" (whatever that means), and affirms Peter's perception that he is "God's anointed one" ("the son of the living God", in Matthew's gospel is obviously a later gloss). So I don't see that anyone should immediately concur with the options that Lewis foists on us. "The Christ of God" does not mean God himself. Apart from the gross fallacies of his argument, he obviously didn't know his Bible very well, and apparently nothing at all of the biblical criticism that had been around for over a hundred years, even at the time he was writing.
Does it matter that Jesus didn't claim to be God?
Btw, I would say that Mark's phrase "son of the blessed" is secondary. Luke (22:67-70), who seems to have an independent source, and Matthew (26:63-64) both add "the son of God" to "are you the Christ". They don't copy Mark's "son of the blessed".
Where Mark has for Jesus' reply, "I am", Matthew and Luke both say "you have said so", and "from now on".
These agreements against Mark indicate that Matthew and Luke could not have been dependent on Mark.
There is also the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, which states "this is my son, my (or the) beloved". So while Jesus didn't directly claim to be God, the gospel authors said that God claimed Jesus was His beloved son. We might modify the trilemma to "mad, bad or son of God"?
-
Does it matter that Jesus didn't claim to be God?
Btw, I would say that Mark's phrase "son of the blessed" is secondary. Luke (22:67-70), who seems to have an independent source, and Matthew (26:63-64) both add "the son of God" to "are you the Christ". They don't copy Mark's "son of the blessed".
Where Mark has for Jesus' reply, "I am", Matthew and Luke both say "you have said so", and "from now on".
These agreements against Mark indicate that Matthew and Luke could not have been dependent on Mark.
There is also the voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism and transfiguration, which states "this is my son, my (or the) beloved". So while Jesus didn't directly claim to be God, the gospel authors said that God claimed Jesus was His beloved son. We might modify the trilemma to "mad, bad or son of God"?
It matters in terms of what C.S.Lewis claimed Jesus said, and the subsequent options he maintains are forced upon us by his 'trilemma'. That is what is being discussed here.
"Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
-
It matters in terms of what C.S.Lewis claimed Jesus said, and the subsequent options he maintains are forced upon us by his 'trilemma'. That is what is being discussed here.
"Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Exactly - this issues isn't the nature of the claim - no the issue is two-fold. First that we have no credible evidence that he did make the claim (whatever that claim may be) only that later writers claimed that he made the claim (whatever that claim may be). The second problem is that Lewis disingenuously narrows explanations to three, rather the far greater number of plausible explanations (including mistranslated, misinterpreted, misunderstood, exaggerated by later writers, made up by later writers etc etc) which are not only plausible but far more likely explanations than mad, bad or god.
-
It matters in terms of what C.S.Lewis claimed Jesus said,
I meant that even if Jesus didn't directly claim to be God (or, that he shares God's divine nature, if that is an easier way to understand it), one could still conclude that he is, based on other things he said and did, such as walking across a lake, calming a storm, rising from the dead, indirectly affirming that he is God's son etc.
and the subsequent options he maintains are forced upon us by his 'trilemma'. That is what is being discussed here.
"Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
-
It seems to me that Dicky and Davey's objection to Lewis is he does not adequately address "Jesus as Myth" thinking...as if there is in fact anything to address there.
Yet elsewhere Lewis and around the same time, I think Sayers address the Jesus as merely a good teacher.
Setting the trilemma up as some kind of proposed scientific law just to say well actually it's a quadrilemma seems trivial but part of the pilgrimage of retreat of the God avoided.
Given that then. The "Mad"part of the trilemma covers the suspicion that the Christian claim is bonkers and mistranslation etc down to intellectual deficiency and illusion, the "Bad" part is the malpractice, deviousness, evil intent that would be behind christianity if it were bad. And the "true " part is the inevitable third option after all basis are covered.
-
Given that then. The "Mad"part of the trilemma covers the suspicion that the Christian claim is bonkers and mistranslation etc down to intellectual deficiency and illusion, the "Bad" part is the malpractice, deviousness, evil intent that would be behind christianity if it were bad. And the "true " part is the inevitable third option after all basis are covered.
Not really: it seems to me that Lewis was using the 'mad or bad' (lunatic or liar) as possible labels to describe the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT, both of which he rejects presumably because he has already fallen for the 'lord' option hook, line and sinker. The problem is though that the texts he bases his assumptions on lack credibility because their provenance is unknown, hence the risks of mistakes or lies cannot be ignored.
Every time someone, say a cleric, says along the lines of 'Jesus taught/tells us whatever' they are merely reciting an anecdote that is not confirmed as being true or accurate: they have no way of checking, so they are at best overreaching or at worst peddling possible untruths as being historical facts.
-
Not really: it seems to me that Lewis was using the 'mad or bad' (lunatic or liar) as possible labels to describe the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT, both of which he rejects presumably because he has already fallen for the 'lord' option hook, line and sinker. The problem is though that the texts he bases his assumptions on lack credibility because their provenance is unknown, hence the risks of mistakes or lies cannot be ignored.
Every time someone, say a cleric, says along the lines of 'Jesus taught/tells us whatever' they are merely reciting an anecdote that is not confirmed as being true or accurate: they have no way of checking, so they are at best overreaching or at worst peddling possible untruths as being historical facts.
I think Lewis is making the point that public atheists like yourself have fallen for the liar or lunatic scenario. You for instance are of the obvious bollocks and evil school explaining your lack of any impulse to justify yourself.
While then, Someone like yourself might be unashamedly of the liar or lunatic school, Lewis points out that one can't really hold that Jesus and Christians are merely mistaken or that Jesus was a great man deluded in his religious identity.
-
I think Lewis is making the point that public atheists like yourself have fallen for the liar or lunatic scenario. You for instance are of the obvious bollocks and evil school explaining your lack of any impulse to justify yourself.
While then, Someone like yourself might be unashamedly of the liar or lunatic school, Lewis points out that one can't really hold that Jesus and Christians are merely mistaken or that Jesus was a great man deluded in his religious identity.
Not really, since I don't don't take Lewis seriously in the first place - I don't care for his fiction, as a matter of personal taste, but I've read some of his Christian stuff and I think on that issue he is the equivalent of a tambourine rattling buffoon on a street corner somewhere.
I understand that there is a bit in the NT where Jesus allegedly does a series of 'Blessed are the' statements (hard not to think Life of Brian here) and I can see no basis to accept that these statements were truly recorded, or actually happened - as in they are not known historical facts, even if the story chimes with some people.
-
It seems to me that Dicky and Davey's objection to Lewis is he does not adequately address "Jesus as Myth" thinking...as if there is in fact anything to address there.
Nar jesta cottonpickin minute! I can't speak for the Prof, but I think there's a bit of pigeonholing going on here. I don't happen to think that because so much written and thought about Jesus is speculative and unreliable there is no historical figure of Jesus at all on whom the gospels etc. were based (probably more than one, in fact). I take on board all Gordon's and the Prof's comments about mistranslation, miscopying, exaggeration, mass hallucination perhaps, and simply bad reporting. I believe there was a (mistaken) apocalyptic prophet around that time, and that some of his words and beliefs have filtered down to us in the New Testament. The essential figures in this kind of thinking are Albert Schweitzer, Bart Ehrman, E.P.Sanders and Geza Vermes.
My argument with Lewis is that he forces upon us the speculations of the original evangelists and more importantly much later theological exegesis and requires us to accept these as being unequivocal statements coming directly from Jesus himself - "he does not give us that option". Well, thank you very much Mr. Lewis, I will make up my own mind on what I consider Jesus may have required of us. I certainly can't see anything in the scriptures that suggests that calling Jesus "God" was a sine qua non.
In short, I believe Jesus was a failed and mistaken prophet, whose mission was to prepare people to adopt a different way of life, in view of the imminent intervention of God in history, which would bring about the end of the old order of things. That's just one other option, and many others have been proffered.
As for the mythologising, there was a lot of that which came along, and unfortunately it was Paul who was first on the scene to write about Jesus (as far as we know), and his epistles are almost entirely mythological creations, with a bit of social advice thrown in. The writers that followed were required to fill in the gaps
-
I understand that there is a bit in the NT where Jesus allegedly does a series of 'Blessed are the' statements
Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.
-
Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.
Might he be wrong? Might he be overly gullible? Might be be peddling propaganda for Jesus?
I'd say the above were all reasonable questions that, unless dealt with, make the story too risky to be taken seriously as historical fact. Even then, it reads as rambling generalisation, so not that important really.
-
Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.
Or both copied another written source, which is the majority (although not exclusive) opinion within the field of NT criticism.
The above doesn't really alter your point though: Luke considered it authentic or he wouldn't have put it in his gospel. That doesn't mean it was authentic though.
-
Not really: it seems to me that Lewis was using the 'mad or bad' (lunatic or liar) as possible labels to describe the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT, both of which he rejects presumably because he has already fallen for the 'lord' option hook, line and sinker. The problem is though that the texts he bases his assumptions on lack credibility because their provenance is unknown, hence the risks of mistakes or lies cannot be ignored.
Every time someone, say a cleric, says along the lines of 'Jesus taught/tells us whatever' they are merely reciting an anecdote that is not confirmed as being true or accurate: they have no way of checking, so they are at best overreaching or at worst peddling possible untruths as being historical facts.
It's worth remembering that Lewis was writing for an audience that had a more reverential outlook with respect to Jesus. He's actually relying on the shock value that would be attached to somebody saying Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. Even now we tend to shy away from those two options, preferring instead, to point out that Jesus could have been mistaken or lied about by others.
I think we should all embrace the dishonesty of the Trilemma and and choose "liar". How would Lewis (or Vlad) respond to that? I think the argument collapses completely if Lewis is forced to confront somebody who is prepared to accept one of the distasteful (to him) options.
-
It's worth remembering that Lewis was writing for an audience that had a more reverential outlook with respect to Jesus. He's actually relying on the shock value that would be attached to somebody saying Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. Even now we tend to shy away from those two options, preferring instead, to point out that Jesus could have been mistaken or lied about by others.
Correct - and that is one of the most disingenuous/dishonest aspects of the trilemma. Effectively only to provide options which require you to shift to one extreme (bad, mad) or the other (god). And to do so under cultural circumstances where the one extreme options (mad, bad) would have been culturally and societally challenging.
However once you add in the numerous 'middle ground' options - e.g. mistranslated, misinterpreted, mistaken, simply wrong, exaggerated over time etc etc, so are not forced into the extremes - so we are comfortably able to conclude that, based on the evidence, we cannot plump for mad, bad or god.
I think we should all embrace the dishonesty of the Trilemma and and choose "liar". How would Lewis (or Vlad) respond to that? I think the argument collapses completely if Lewis is forced to confront somebody who is prepared to accept one of the distasteful (to him) options.
Hmm, not so sure as this simply plays back into Lewis dishonest narrowing of options. Realistically you, me and basically everyone cannot conclude that Jesus was a liar any more than we can conclude that Jesus was god. Why, well because there is woefully insufficient evident to make either of the conclusions. All we have are writers from decades later (and the actual text we have is from centuries later) claiming that Jesus made certain claims. That is only evidence we have is that those later writers made those claim (as to what Jesus said), not that he actually said any of those things. And what we do know is that the later writers are inconsistent one with another, partial in that they had an agenda and also that there are many, many variations in early copies of those texts. So the evidence (the very limited that we have) points towards conclusions that aren't mad, bad or god.
-
Or both copied another written source, which is the majority (although not exclusive) opinion within the field of NT criticism.
The above doesn't really alter your point though: Luke considered it authentic or he wouldn't have put it in his gospel. That doesn't mean it was authentic though.
According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing. His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).
-
According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing. His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).
And what is the dating of the actual text on which this theory is based. By that I mean an actual copy rather than a long-lost original (which we do not and cannot know what it said, unless we happen to stumble upon it).
-
According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing. His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).
Spud
I don't think we need to wander in the direction of this particular bit of text (you can start a thread if it interests you). I raised this as an example of why, in relation to the Trilemma proposal, the NT text doesn't lend support to Lewis because he conveniently ignores the potential risks by taking the NT text seriously, where the 'Blessed are' bits are just an example.
-
And what is the dating of the actual text on which this theory is based. By that I mean an actual copy rather than a long-lost original (which we do not and cannot know what it said, unless we happen to stumble upon it).
Roughly three centuries after the events. But don't let that put you off, it's about the same time gap as that for Alexander the great.
-
Roughly three centuries after the events. But don't let that put you off, it's about the same time gap as that for Alexander the great.
True - and also true for many other ancient texts where we only have later versions so cannot be sure what was in the original.
But there are two important differences between Jesus and Alexander the Great. First, there is contemporary archeological evidence to corroborate aspects of Alexander's life, including coins, statues, inscriptions etc. There are zero equivalent contemporaneous artefacts for Jesus. But perhaps more importantly writings about Alexander are not posited as evidence for him being divine (or certainly no-one today would be claiming as such). So realistically we are not being asked to change our lives, worship Alexander as a god etc etc. so it largely is merely of academic interest whether or not the writings about Alexander reflect what was originally written or not. The same isn't true for Jesus, where we are asked to accept a series of implausible claims about him on the basis of writings that were written decades after the events and where we don't have anything close to the original and where we know that early versions contain numerous inconsistencies and in many cases show clear evidence of later (not late 1stC to early 2ndC, but 4/5thC to 3rdC) additions.
So what we actually have is carefully curated 4thC versions which may bear little resemblance to what might have been written in the late 1stC. And yet we are asked to unquestioningly accept these as evidence for totally implausible claims.
-
Therefore, the trilemma proposed by Lewis is spurious nonsense given his proposal is no more than unjustified assertion based on unreliable sources, where his preferred conclusion of 'God' is unjustified by any evidence and since it's magical thinking on his part in concluding that the historically uncertain figure called 'Jesus' was some kind of supernatural agent.
-
Therefore, the trilemma proposed by Lewis is spurious nonsense given his proposal is no more than unjustified assertion based on unreliable sources, where his preferred conclusion of 'God' is unjustified by any evidence and since it's magical thinking on his part in concluding that the historically uncertain figure called 'Jesus' was some kind of supernatural agent.
Would it be better to apply it to the New Testament writers? ie, they were mad, bad or right?
-
Would it be better to apply it to the New Testament writers? ie, they were mad, bad or right?
Who knows? Who cares? Who can check their stories?
It's indistinguishable from fiction, especially given the ridiculous supernatural claims, so best to not take the NT seriously. That is why the trilemma is idiocy: it has no substance, and silly metaphysical nonsense aplenty.
-
Realistically you, me and basically everyone cannot conclude that Jesus was a liar any more than we can conclude that Jesus was god.
Really? I think it is vastly more likely that Jesus was a liar than he actually was a god. The former is a real possibility whereas the latter is just fantasy.
-
According to Harold Riley, the sermon on the mount in Matthew has a distinct structure, which shows signs of later editing.
Certainly plausible. It's also plausible that he had a source that had a distinct structure and Luke had a version of the same source that showed signs of later editing, or even that Luke was the one who did the editing.
His theory is that Luke has preserved the original form and wording of Matthew's beatitudes, which his copy of Matthew contained. Riley thinks this because he sees general signs that Luke has used Matthew's sermon as the basis for his version in Luke 6 (eg they both continue with the centurion's servant).
I'm not saying he is wrong. Mark Goodacre would definitely agree that Luke used Matthew and edited it himself. However, that is not the view of the majority of mainstream scholars. That's all I'm saying.
-
Would it be better to apply it to the New Testament writers? ie, they were mad, bad or right?
Or mistaken or misled by their sources, or ...
-
Or mistaken or misled by their sources, or ...
I think that is part of the 'mad' category?
-
It's indistinguishable from fiction, especially given the ridiculous supernatural claims
Just to clarify, would you still say it is indistinguishable from fiction if the supernatural elements were not there?
-
Just to clarify, would you still say it is indistinguishable from fiction if the supernatural elements were not there?
Yes - since there is a lack of provenance.
-
I think that is part of the 'mad' category?
No it isn't. Being wrong on a matter doesn't necessarily make you either mad or bad, it may be that you are genuinely mistaken.
So were those people who thought that the sun went round the earth mad? Nope in most cases they were just genuinely mistaken, believing what they'd been told despite the fact that it wasn't true.
Spud, you don't come across to me as either mad or bad even if I think you are wrong in thinking that god exists. To claim that there are only three options - you are mad, you are bad, or that god exists is clearly non-sense. You could simply be wrong.
-
Really? I think it is vastly more likely that Jesus was a liar than he actually was a god.
So do, I but we aren't talking about the options of 'bad' (i.e liar) or god. Given that we have no credible evidence that he ever claimed that he was god then we can add in the notion that later writers exaggerated, misinterpreted or mistranslated what he actually said. This seems obviously more plausible than him being god but also at least as plausible (I'd argue way more so) than concluding that he lied. Realistically it is pretty implausible that oral conversations between Jesus and others (sometimes just one other) could have been accurately recorded verbatim and retained/passed on with perfect fidelity over many decades.
The former is a real possibility whereas the latter is just fantasy.
True but that he never actually said what was claimed or that his words were misinterpreted, mistranslated etc seems to be an even more likely possibility.
-
So do, I but we aren't talking about the options of 'bad' (i.e liar) or god. Given that we have no credible evidence that he ever claimed that he was god then we can add in the notion that later writers exaggerated, misinterpreted or mistranslated what he actually said. This seems obviously more plausible than him being god but also at least as plausible (I'd argue way more so) than concluding that he lied. Realistically it is pretty implausible that oral conversations between Jesus and others (sometimes just one other) could have been accurately recorded verbatim and retained/passed on with perfect fidelity over many decades.
True but that he never actually said what was claimed or that his words were misinterpreted, mistranslated etc seems to be an even more likely possibility.
Actually, I think there is a high probability that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic or some combination thereof. We know he was a cult leader and we have direct evidence of other cult leaders and it seems to me that deception and delusion are frequent character traits.
-
Actually, I think there is a high probability that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic or some combination thereof. We know he was a cult leader and we have direct evidence of other cult leaders and it seems to me that deception and delusion are frequent character traits.
Possibly, but there is a difference between lying, which I consider to be saying things that you know to be untrue, and being genuinely mistaken (in other words you say something that you consider to be true but actually isn't). So to consider someone to be a liar we would first of all need to be sure what they claimed and then you'd need to determine whether or not they knew the thing they claimed was not true. In the case of Jesus realistically we have no idea what he actually claimed (rather than what later writers claimed that he ... err ... claimed) and we even less know whether or not he knew the things he was claiming were, or were not, true.
So he might have been a liar but it is frankly impossible for us to know based on the paucity of evidence we have. So realistically ascribing attributes to Jesus is a fool's game as we know next to nothing genuinely about him. We might ascribe attributes to those later writers who wrote about him as we have (to an extent) writing from them, plus also we know a little about the development of the early church and the writing we have was clearly carefully curated by those early church leaders.
-
Yes - since there is a lack of provenance.
I would disagree. I am certain, for example, that they were written within a generation after the events, and thus would have been exposed as fiction soon afterwards had they been so (you did ask, Who can check their stories?)
Your frequent phrase, "mistakes or lies" seems to summarise the trilemma, with respect to the authors, by the way.
-
I would disagree. I am certain, for example, that they were written within a generation after the events, and thus would have been exposed as fiction soon afterwards had they been so (you did ask, Who can check their stories?)
Your frequent phrase, "mistakes or lies" seems to summarise the trilemma, with respect to the authors, by the way.
If you are going to make fantastical claims based on the text of the NT then you'd need address the risks of mistakes or lies, and if you can't (and you can't) then you should consider the NT as being too unreliable to take seriously.
You seem reluctant to consider that the mysterious 'authors' of the NT might be either ignorant, gullible or devious: just like some people are today.
-
Two versions, in Matthew and Luke; the latter copied the former, which means that he considered it authentic.
It also appears in the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of Jesus sayings without interest in miracles, prophecies, dying for sins, personality stories etc.
-
If you are going to make fantastical claims based on the text of the NT then you'd need address the risks of mistakes or lies, and if you can't (and you can't) then you should consider the NT as being too unreliable to take seriously.
You seem reluctant to consider that the mysterious 'authors' of the NT might be either ignorant, gullible or devious: just like some people are today.
.....Which distill down to mad or bad in my book.
I'm intrigued by your apparent suspicion that people don't consider the risk of lies or mistakes.
I wonder how far you have considered them. What did you do that others have failed to?
I'm still pretty sure that your objections to the historicity of the early church are not actually historical but are based tenuously in current science(scientism?) and personal incredulity.
-
Possibly, but there is a difference between lying, which I consider to be saying things that you know to be untrue, and being genuinely mistaken (in other words you say something that you consider to be true but actually isn't). So to consider someone to be a liar we would first of all need to be sure what they claimed and then you'd need to determine whether or not they knew the thing they claimed was not true. In the case of Jesus realistically we have no idea what he actually claimed (rather than what later writers claimed that he ... err ... claimed) and we even less know whether or not he knew the things he was claiming were, or were not, true.
So he might have been a liar but it is frankly impossible for us to know based on the paucity of evidence we have. So realistically ascribing attributes to Jesus is a fool's game as we know next to nothing genuinely about him. We might ascribe attributes to those later writers who wrote about him as we have (to an extent) writing from them, plus also we know a little about the development of the early church and the writing we have was clearly carefully curated by those early church leaders.
I'm sure in your book Jesus is not Lord in the biblical divine sense.
So I have to ask you, where does your boundary between mere mistake as in say the errors you make while remaining Sane and Believing that a person can be man and God(Lord?).
If you are honest I think you think it is mad as evidenced in your contribution to it's eradication here on Religion Ethics.
-
.....Which distill down to mad or bad in my book.
I'm intrigued by your apparent suspicion that people don't consider the risk of lies or mistakes.
I wonder how far you have considered them. What did you do that others have failed to?
I'm still pretty sure that your objections to the historicity of the early church are not actually historical but are based tenuously in current science(scientism?) and personal incredulity.
It's very simple to explain, Vlad - because the risks of mistakes or lies are fairly obvious, and given the nature of some of the claims, I think the only sensible option is to reject any notion that the NT portrays actual history. It is for those who claim that it does portray actual history to assess the risks of mistakes and/or lies, and if they can't do that then it seems to me that taking the NT seriously is a bit silly.
My dismissal of the NT as history isn't based on 'scientism' or personal incredulity: it's simply about the lack of provenance and the fantastical claims therein.
-
I'm sure in your book Jesus is not Lord in the biblical divine sense.
So I have to ask you, where does your boundary between mere mistake as in say the errors you make while remaining Sane and Believing that a person can be man and God(Lord?).
If you are honest I think you think it is mad as evidenced in your contribution to it's eradication here on Religion Ethics.
Well we are back into the hoary old world of objective and subjective truths aren't we. And we also need to factor in cultural context.
So there are plenty of situations where there is a cultural orthodoxy to belief something that is objectively not true - so for example that the sun goes round the earth. And those people 'mad' or 'bad' if they have been brought up culturally to believe that the sun goes around the earth when they do not have easy access to factual information to demonstrate that belief to be wrong. Well in my mind they wouldn't be either mad or bad but genuinely mistaken.
Well the situation shifts when objective facts are readily available - so you may then argue that someone who wilfully refuses to accept the facts is at the very least deluded. Or that someone who active suppresses those facts is bad.
But, of course, we aren't talking about objective truths here are we - belief in god is just that belief. So it is effectively a 'subjective' truth which cannot be proved right or wrong. So in this case the issue of mad, bad becomes much more blurred as there is no way to actually prove that belief wrong. Someone may be to an extent deluded or wrong about a genuinely held believe, but does that make them mad or bad?
-
It's very simple to explain, Vlad - because the risks of mistakes or lies are fairly obvious, and given the nature of some of the claims, I think the only sensible option is to reject any notion that the NT portrays actual history. It is for those who claim that it does portray actual history to assess the risks of mistakes and/or lies, and if they can't do that then it seems to me that taking the NT seriously is a bit silly.
My dismissal of the NT as history isn't based on 'scientism' or personal incredulity: it's simply about the lack of provenance and the fantastical claims therein.
I don't think the Story lacks provenance.What it lacks is first hand extant writings but that is something shared with many ancient writings.
You seem to be flip flopping between probably liars or loonies, might be liars and loonies and your own definition of provenance.
-
Well we are back into the hoary old world of objective and subjective truths aren't we. And we also need to factor in cultural context.
So there are plenty of situations where there is a cultural orthodoxy to belief something that is objectively not true - so for example that the sun goes round the earth. And those people 'mad' or 'bad' if they have been brought up culturally to believe that the sun goes around the earth when they do not have easy access to factual information to demonstrate that belief to be wrong. Well in my mind they wouldn't be either mad or bad but genuinely mistaken.
Well the situation shifts when objective facts are readily available - so you may then argue that someone who wilfully refuses to accept the facts is at the very least deluded. Or that someone who active suppresses those facts is bad.
But, of course, we aren't talking about objective truths here are we - belief in god is just that belief. So it is effectively a 'subjective' truth which cannot be proved right or wrong. So in this case the issue of mad, bad becomes much more blurred as there is no way to actually prove that belief wrong. Someone may be to an extent deluded or wrong about a genuinely held believe, but does that make them mad or bad?
I'm not happy that the authors of the new testament meant for Jesus to be considered Jesus as subjectively God or God as subjectively true. As the most high and everlasting father he is the only non ephemeral thing.
You are avoiding your own desire to "eliminate religion" and your motives and emotive behind that which are routed in your views about what is healthy, what is moral.
-
I'm not happy that the authors of the new testament meant for Jesus to be considered Jesus as subjectively God or God as subjectively true. As the most high and everlasting father he is the only non ephemeral thing.
Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well.
The point is that while you might believe god exists you cannot prove it, and while I might not believe that god exists I cannot prove that either. So we are left with individual (and therefore subjective) belief.
So the point is that there is no objective factual evidence to demonstrate that a person's genuinely held belief is right or wrong. This makes it different to someone who might have a genuinely held belief that the sun goes round the sun - that can easily be proved, objectively, to be wrong. So if someone continued to hold to a believe that had been demonstrated objectively to be wrong then you might move from 'genuinely held belief' to 'deluded', 'mad' or 'bad'.
But where a genuinely held belief cannot be proved to be correct or incorrect then it seems to me to remain merely a genuinely held belief and it seems unreasonably to label someone with that belief 'mad' or 'bad'. How they act in regard of that belief is another matter - if they use that belief to justify homophobia or discrimination against women (for example) might alter that. But I'm talking about the base belief itself.
You are avoiding your own desire to "eliminate religion" and your motives and emotive behind that which are routed in your views about what is healthy, what is moral.
Actually it is nothing of the sort - and when have I ever indicated that religion should be eliminated Vlad. I am a secularist and that means freedom of religion and freedom from religion so secularists aren't in the business of eliminating religion.
-
I don't think the Story lacks provenance.What it lacks is first hand extant writings but that is something shared with many ancient writings.
You've just explained why it lacks provenance - no doubt other ancient texts also lack provenance - but that is irrelevant to the specific case of the NT. It could be fictional propaganda for Jesus, and those that take it seriously seem to have no means of excluding that possibility. Perhaps the (I presume) warm and cosy feeling of 'faith' is sufficient for their personal needs and that they are disinclined to look more closely.
You seem to be flip flopping between probably liars or loonies, might be liars and loonies and your own definition of provenance.
Not really - I reject the divine claims in the NT as being nonsensical and indistinguishable from fiction (since only in fiction do you tend to find characters with supernatural attributes). Hence, I'm untroubled by the possibility of bumping into either Jesus or Gandalf when I'm next in Tesco.
-
You've just explained why it lacks provenance - no doubt other ancient texts also lack provenance - but that is irrelevant to the specific case of the NT. It could be fictional propaganda for Jesus, and those that take it seriously seem to have no means of excluding that possibility. Perhaps the (I presume) warm and cosy feeling of 'faith' is sufficient for their personal needs and that they are disinclined to look more closely.
Not really - I reject the divine claims in the NT as being nonsensical and indistinguishable from fiction (since only in fiction do you tend to find characters with supernatural attributes). Hence, I'm untroubled by the possibility of bumping into either Jesus or Gandalf when I'm next in Tesco.
Well you've kind of proved Lewis correct...which rather renders your forum career as "Nutter Baiting".
-
I'm not happy that the authors of the new testament meant for Jesus to be considered Jesus as subjectively God or God as subjectively true. As the most high and everlasting father he is the only non ephemeral thing.
You are avoiding your own desire to "eliminate religion" and your motives and emotive behind that which are routed in your views about what is healthy, what is moral.
Oh dear - now you've called Jesus the everlasting father. Even in Trinitarian doctrine he is not supposed to be called that. But then, I'm not surprised you get confused over such nonsense. Perhaps a talk with the Orthodox might help?
Very touching, your sentimental attachment to old Jack the Whipper, btw. Can't for the life of me understand why you keep flogging (:) )this dead horse.
-
I'm sure in your book Jesus is not Lord in the biblical divine sense.
So I have to ask you, where does your boundary between mere mistake as in say the errors you make while remaining Sane and Believing that a person can be man and God(Lord?).
If you are honest I think you think it is mad as evidenced in your contribution to it's eradication here on Religion Ethics.
Looks like you've shifted away from the original question to wondering whether a believer in Jesus (not Jesus himself) was is sane if they hold to a doctrine worked out long after the death of the original personage.
Back to the question of Jesus' own sanity: this was in fact the theme of the psychological section of Albert Schweitzer's medical doctoral thesis. Schweitzer concluded that in no way was Jesus insane in considering seeing himself as the final fulfillment of Jewish apocalyptic prophecy. However, it does not follow from this that Jesus was and is God - and as Schweitzer finally concluded, Jesus was proved (albeit heroically and sanely) wrong.
-
Oh dear - now you've called Jesus the everlasting father. Even in Trinitarian doctrine he is not supposed to be called that. But then, I'm not surprised you get confused over such nonsense. Perhaps a talk with the Orthodox might help?
Very touching, your sentimental attachment to old Jack the Whipper, btw. Can't for the life of me understand why you keep flogging (:) )this dead horse.
I was referring to God as the Everlasting Father....
Isaiah 9.6 refers to the Messiah as the Everlasting Father and Christianity refers Jesus as the Mrssiah.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
I was referring to God as the Everlasting Father....
Isaiah 9.6 refers to the Messiah as the Everlasting Father and Christianity refers Jesus as the Mrssiah.
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
No mention of the Messiah there, old boy. And even if there were, it's just a Christian extrapolation, about which I don't give a damn (Handel sets the words magnificently though).
Please don't get into the inanities of trinitarian doctrine, though. It's really not relevant.
-
No mention of the Messiah there, old boy. And even if there were, it's just a Christian extrapolation, about which I don't give a damn (Handel sets the words magnificently though).
Please don't get into the inanities of trinitarian doctrine, though. It's really not relevant.
Since you have a thing about trinitarian talk I'm left wondering whether a Religionethics forum not mention it any more .....or you find another forum more suited to your sensibilities.
-
Since you have a thing about trinitarian talk I'm left wondering whether a Religionethics forum not mention it any more .....or you find another forum more suited to your sensibilities.
If you're anxious to talk about the Trinity, why not open a new thread? I fear it would be a very short-lived one though.
-
Well you've kind of proved Lewis correct...
How so?
-
It also appears in the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of Jesus sayings without interest in miracles, prophecies, dying for sins, personality stories etc.
So tat's three authors who quote beatitudes, suggesting the sayings are authentic?
-
So tat's three authors who quote beatitudes, suggesting the sayings are authentic?
Nope
-
How so?
You are a no-nonsense, call a spade a spade, reject if you can't cut glass with it, streetfighter for atheism, Gordon...
You tell it how it is....and how it is screams Christians are mad or bad and probably both and no mistaking
-
You are a no-nonsense, call a spade a spade, reject if you can't cut glass with it, streetfighter for atheism, Gordon...
You tell it how it is....and how it is screams Christians are mad or bad and probably both and no mistaking
That isn't what I think though.
We're talking here specifically about the trilemma characterisations of Jesus by Lewis (the liar, lunatic or lord claim) - my view is that this trilemma is based on questionable sources, and even then it is too narrow in scope by ignoring other possibilities, and therefore has little value.
While I do think that the core tenets of Christianity are unsound, I don't think that Christians in general are 'mad or bad' - you're extrapolating from what I actually said (about the trilemma) to what you would have liked me to have said, so I'd say you were misrepresenting me.
I only personally know one self-confessed Christian, and he is neither 'mad nor bad': I'm referring to our very own Gonnagle, and I regard him as a personal friend of many years standing.
-
Looks like you've shifted away from the original question to wondering whether a believer in Jesus (not Jesus himself) was is sane if they hold to a doctrine worked out long after the death of the original personage.
Back to the question of Jesus' own sanity: this was in fact the theme of the psychological section of Albert Schweitzer's medical doctoral thesis. Schweitzer concluded that in no way was Jesus insane in considering seeing himself as the final fulfillment of Jewish apocalyptic prophecy. However, it does not follow from this that Jesus was and is God - and as Schweitzer finally concluded, Jesus was proved (albeit heroically and sanely) wrong.
I think that had Jesus acted and claimed in the way he is recorded in the NT. If he sincerely believed in it and himself he should either be a madman along the lines of someone who thinks they are Napoleon or a great criminal operator or be what he claimed to be.
That trilemma then devolves to any apologist. They are either mad, bad or Correct.
Search yourself and you come down basically to holding to one of those options.
[
-
That isn't what I think though.
We're talking here specifically about the trilemma characterisations of Jesus by Lewis (the liar, lunatic or lord claim) - my view is that this trilemma is based on questionable sources, and even then it is too narrow in scope by ignoring other possibilities, and therefore has little value.
While I do think that the core tenets of Christianity are unsound, I don't think that Christians in general are 'mad or bad' - you're extrapolating from what I actually said (about the trilemma) to what you would have liked me to have said, so I'd say you were misrepresenting me.
I only personally know one self-confessed Christian, and he is neither 'mad nor bad': I'm referring to our very own Gonnagle, and I regard him as a personal friend of many years standing.
vis a vis the extent of how mentally aberrant you think Christians are, don't you think you could be offering Gonnagle "mates rates" on this?
-
vis a vis the extent of how mentally aberrant you think Christians are, don't you think you could be offering Gonnagle "mates rates" on this?
Do you ever read and think about what people actually say to you, or do you just prefer to mindlessly rant at everyone?
-
I think that had Jesus acted and claimed in the way he is recorded in the NT. If he sincerely believed in it and himself he should either be a madman along the lines of someone who thinks they are Napoleon or a great criminal operator or be what he claimed to be.
That trilemma then devolves to any apologist. They are either mad, bad or Correct.
Search yourself and you come down basically to holding to one of those options.
[
Search yourself, rather. Schweitzer concluded that Jesus was not mad to hold the beliefs he held (as far as we can tell what those beliefs were from highly questionable writings, written at best from second-hand memories, years after the events and sayings in question). I'm with Schweitzer: Jesus was sincerely mistaken. He was not mad. Many millennial, end-time preachers have been sincere believers since (There is a certain amount of end-time thought in the writings of John Wesley). Some were most certainly unhinged (Charles Taze Russell and 'Judge' Rutherford for example) but most have just been sincerely mistaken.
-
I'm with Schweitzer: Jesus was sincerely mistaken. He was not mad. Many millennial, end-time preachers have been sincere believers since (There is a certain amount of end-time thought in the writings of John Wesley). Some were most certainly unhinged (Charles Taze Russell and 'Judge' Rutherford for example) but most have just been sincerely mistaken.
I don't think Lewis ever says that someone who is mad is not also sincerely mistaken. How is thinking and acting like you are divine and uniquely so among men not at least equivalent to thinking you are Napoleon? If Jesus was Sane, why not take him seriously?
-
I don't think Lewis ever says that someone who is mad is not also sincerely mistaken. How is thinking and acting like you are divine and uniquely so among men not at least equivalent to thinking you are Napoleon? If Jesus was Sane, why not take him seriously?
He wasn't me
-
I don't think Lewis ever says that someone who is mad is not also sincerely mistaken. How is thinking and acting like you are divine and uniquely so among men not at least equivalent to thinking you are Napoleon? If Jesus was Sane, why not take him seriously?
The point is, as I and others here have been saying till blue in the face, he is not recorded as thinking (and certainly not saying) that he was divine. The most that can reasonably concluded from the corrupted writings that we have is that he thought he was the prophet to announce God's final intervention in history to bring about a new world order. At the end of Luke's gospel (road to Emmaus) you will see that this is as much as the disciples at the time were prepared to say about him. After that, further extrapolations were made about his being divine.
Jesus was not alone in thinking he was the prophet to announce the new age. There were many, and Josephus tells us of them in very uncomplimentary terms. What he says about Jesus (where the text hasn't been tampered with) is not exactly eulogistic. The time was ripe for such apocalyptic thinking, with Rome in control and a puppet Jewish monarch on the throne. Jesus' contribution was rather more convincing than the other would-be prophets, but things did not turn out as he seems to have prophesied.
-
The point is, as I and others here have been saying till blue in the face, he is not recorded as thinking (and certainly not saying) that he was divine. The most that can reasonably concluded from the corrupted writings that we have is that he thought he was the prophet to announce God's final intervention in history to bring about a new world order. At the end of Luke's gospel (road to Emmaus) you will see that this is as much as the disciples at the time were prepared to say about him. After that, further extrapolations were made about his being divine.
Jesus was not alone in thinking he was the prophet to announce the new age. There were many, and Josephus tells us of them in very uncomplimentary terms. What he says about Jesus (where the text hasn't been tampered with) is not exactly eulogistic. The time was ripe for such apocalyptic thinking, with Rome in control and a puppet Jewish monarch on the throne. Jesus' contribution was rather more convincing than the other would-be prophets, but things did not turn out as he seems to have prophesied.
And as I've been saying anyone acting and saying what Jesus is reported as saying and doing is alluding to their own divinity.
-
And as I've been saying anyone acting and saying what Jesus is reported as saying and doing is alluding to their own divinity.
Translation please.
-
The most that can reasonably concluded from the corrupted writings that we have is that he thought he was the prophet to announce God's final intervention in history to bring about a new world order. At the end of Luke's gospel (road to Emmaus) you will see that this is as much as the disciples at the time were prepared to say about him.
That was before they knew that he had risen.
-
That was before they knew that he had risen.
Not that he did 'rise'.
But you are implying that the text was written in real time. It wasn't - all of the text was written decades or centuries after the 'rising' was purported to have taken place.
-
Translation please.
Jesus was alluding to his own divinity in what he said and did.
-
The point is, as I and others here have been saying till blue in the face, he is not recorded as thinking (and certainly not saying) that he was divine. The most that can reasonably concluded from the corrupted writings that we have is that he thought he was the prophet to announce God's final intervention in history to bring about a new world order. At the end of Luke's gospel (road to Emmaus) you will see that this is as much as the disciples at the time were prepared to say about him. After that, further extrapolations were made about his being divine.
Jesus was not alone in thinking he was the prophet to announce the new age. There were many, and Josephus tells us of them in very uncomplimentary terms. What he says about Jesus (where the text hasn't been tampered with) is not exactly eulogistic. The time was ripe for such apocalyptic thinking, with Rome in control and a puppet Jewish monarch on the throne. Jesus' contribution was rather more convincing than the other would-be prophets, but things did not turn out as he seems to have prophesied.
In the penultimate verse of Luke the disciples worship him. Therefore by that point they see him as divine. But I get your point, that Jesus doesn't claim to be divine, except in John.
-
Jesus was alluding to his own divinity in what he said and did.
FIFY
It has been claimed that "Jesus was alluding to his own divinity in what he said and did", but these claims lack provenance and, as such, are historically worthless.
My added text in red.
-
FIFY
It has been claimed that "Jesus was alluding to his own divinity in what he said and did", but these claims lack provenance and, as such, are historically worthless.
My added text in red.
Can you cite where it has been shown that the Gospels are historically worthless or are those just your words?
-
Can you cite where it has been shown that the Gospels are historically worthless or are those just your words?
Don't be silly - apart from some, but not all, of the letters of Paul the NT lacks provenance: nobody knows who actually wrote what, when and where they were written, whether the authors were biased or truthful or to what extent they were at a later date edited or amended. As such, there is no basis to confirm their reliability.
It is for those who take these writings seriously to deal with the lack of provenance and the risks of lies or mistakes contained within them. Hence, as things stand, I'd say it is easy to just dismiss them as being serious or accurate historical reportage: especially since they contain fantastical and unbelievable miracle claims.
-
Don't be silly - apart from some, but not all, of the letters of Paul the NT lacks provenance: nobody knows who actually wrote what, when and where they were written, whether the authors were biased or truthful or to what extent they were at a later date edited or amended. As such, there is no basis to confirm their reliability.
It is for those who take these writings seriously to deal with the lack of provenance and the risks of lies or mistakes contained within them. Hence, as things stand, I'd say it is easy to just dismiss them as being serious or accurate historical reportage: especially since they contain fantastical and unbelievable miracle claims.
I can't find anything to back you up, in fact I find the opposite.That and your continual failure to make citation and merely backing yourself up.
-
I can't find anything to back you up, in fact I find the opposite.That and your continual failure to make citation and merely backing yourself up.
I'm simply noting the absence of provenance: if you regard the NT as being accurate history then the burden of proof is all yours.
I'm critiquing the lack of 'citation' than confirms that the NT is accurate.
-
I'm simply noting the absence of provenance: if you regard the NT as being accurate history then the burden of proof is all yours.
I'm critiquing the lack of 'citation' than confirms that the NT is accurate.
You were talking about the lack of provenance. That claim is not mainstream scholastic thinking, apart from being positive assertion on your part so you need to back that up.
Mainstream scholars put the gospels in the class of historical biography giving it, I would have thought provenance and accuracy. How accurate we could perhaps discuss once we've explored your claim of the lack of provenance.
-
Don't be silly - apart from some, but not all, of the letters of Paul the NT lacks provenance: nobody knows who actually wrote what, when and where they were written, whether the authors were biased or truthful or to what extent they were at a later date edited or amended. As such, there is no basis to confirm their reliability.
It is for those who take these writings seriously to deal with the lack of provenance and the risks of lies or mistakes contained within them. Hence, as things stand, I'd say it is easy to just dismiss them as being serious or accurate historical reportage: especially since they contain fantastical and unbelievable miracle claims.
But that is what we have been showing throughout the various threads on the gospels. Eg the "cleansing of the temple" is reported by all four gospels, but John says it occurred at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, whereas the synoptics say it occurred at the end. At first glance this gives the impression of unreliability, but the similarities (they all say that it happened at Passover time, for example) suggest they are based in a historical event. The four gospels give us different perspectives of the same events.
Does it matter if they were edited or amended? I suggest the miracles are the only aspect that can be used to claim mistakes or lies, but again the four accounts have many similarities, suggesting they are based on actual events.
-
You were talking about the lack of provenance. That claim is not mainstream scholastic thinking, apart from being positive assertion on your part so you need to back that up.
Mainstream scholars put the gospels in the class of historical biography giving it, I would have thought provenance and accuracy. How accurate we could perhaps discuss once we've explored your claim of the lack of provenance.
In terms of these scholars are you referring to theologians or historians: an important difference, since as far as I am aware professional historians are unlikely to claim that, say, the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. I suspect that theologians would approach that story as a faith belief, in which case then any presumption of provenance is also a matter of faith, since that includes an assumption that the original writers weren't mistaken or telling lies.
So, Vlad, what exactly is the 'theological provenance' for the 'divine' aspects of the NT - do tell.
-
In terms of these scholars are you referring to theologians or historians: an important difference, since as far as I am aware professional historians are unlikely to claim that, say, the alleged resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. I suspect that theologians would approach that story as a faith belief, in which case then any presumption of provenance is also a matter of faith, since that includes an assumption that the original writers weren't mistaken or telling lies.
So, Vlad, what exactly is the 'theological provenance' for the 'divine' aspects of the NT - do tell.
You seem to be making over Professional Historians in your own image here. I'm sure there are professional historians of all stripes of informed opinion.
I will however put your claims to the professional historians of my Ken to check if professional history is avowedly, publicly, professing, messaging board contributingly, atheist.
-
You seem to be making over Professional Historians in your own image here. I'm sure there are professional historians of all stripes of informed opinion.
I will however put your claims to the professional historians of my Ken to check if professional history is avowedly, publicly, professing, messaging board contributingly, atheist.
You keep tilting at windmills for no apparent reason, Don Quixote.
The provenance problems with the NT have nothing to do with atheism: they involve the absence of details about who wrote what, when (they weren't contemporaneous) and where they wrote it, whether they were biased or had a vested interest of some sort, the risks of mistakes of lies being introduced, the problems of translation, that the original documents aren't available and that the earliest documents now available may have been post hoc edited or amended (since there are no originals to compare with).
Even an everyday Christian, or a theologian, should be able to appreciate that these provenance matters are relevant. Presumably, their attachment to the NT is driven by their faith rather than seeing the content as documentary history, especially given some of the fantastical claims being made in the NT.
-
You seem to be making over Professional Historians in your own image here. I'm sure there are professional historians of all stripes of informed opinion.
I will however put your claims to the professional historians of my Ken to check if professional history is avowedly, publicly, professing, messaging board contributingly, atheist.
You might like to check those of your Barbie as well but since Gordon's post didn't say professional history is athiest you would be wasting their and your time.
It is, though, methodologically naturalistic.
-
You might like to check those of your Barbie as well but since Gordon's post didn't say professional history is athiest you would be wasting their and your time.
It is, though, methodologically naturalistic.
Which sounds the same as declaring that whatever happens it must conform to what philosophical naturalism allows.
History then doesn't do God.
However that statement doesn't seem true in the same sense that science doesn't do God.
What atheism and indeed naturalism has lacked is the hard centuries of being intellectually scrutinised and in my view atheists handle naturalism with the same uncritical enthusiasm of kids getting a new toy drum on Christmas day.
I have promised though to put this to 'Professional historians of my Ken which I'm sure will prove more profitable than chewing the cud here with Gordon and your good self.
-
Which sounds the same as declaring that whatever happens it must conform to what philosophical naturalism allows.
History then doesn't do God.
However that statement doesn't seem true in the same sense that science doesn't do God.
What atheism and indeed naturalism has lacked is the hard centuries of being intellectually scrutinised and in my view atheists handle naturalism with the same uncritical enthusiasm of kids getting a new toy drum on Christmas day.
I have promised though to put this to 'Professional historians of my Ken which I'm sure will prove more profitable than chewing the cud here with Gordon and your good self.
No, it doesn't sound like that. You appear to be saying here that there is no such thing as methodological naturalism, is that your position now,?
-
Which sounds the same as declaring that whatever happens it must conform to what philosophical naturalism allows.
That should be methodological naturalism, Vlad, as well you know.
I have promised though to put this to 'Professional historians of my Ken which I'm sure will prove more profitable than chewing the cud here with Gordon and your good self.
Don't forget to check their professional/academic credentials first.
-
That should be methodological naturalism, Vlad, as well you know.
As I've pointed out methodological naturalism in science is different from the methodological naturalism in history. They take their cue from different aspects of the philosophy.
-
As I've pointed out methodological naturalism in science is different from the methodological naturalism in history. They take their cue from different aspects of the philosophy.I'm more concerned about yours.
Can you point me in the direction of where you argue this? It's difficult to conceive of what the origin to methodological naturalism can make any difference to it being methodological naturalism and not as you elided philosophical naturalism in a funny hat
-
Canada you point me in the direction of where you argue this? It's difficult to conceive of what the origin to methodological naturalism can make any difference to it being methodological naturalism and not as you elided philosophical naturalism in a funny hat
I cantada point out where I've argued that merely that I've said they are different. I will argue it if you like.
You are arguing that history doesn't do God, it's naturalistic but science unlike history is 100% empirical in a physicalist sense.
History deals with human motivations.
Both the chosen directions for science and history come from differing aspects of naturalism. In history God cannot be the final ultimate agency but Man shares that role with chance and geography and in science it's the laws of nature.
History is a blend of philosophy and methodology. So where as you can be a scientist and avoid philosophy, you can't escape it in History. Unless you are arguing that history should only deal with where and in what state matter and energy we're in at a certain time and place.
That's my view but as I've said, I'm prepared to be educated by "The Professionals".
-
I cantada point out where I've argued that merely that I've said they are different. I will argue it if you like.
You are arguing that history doesn't do God, it's naturalistic but science unlike history is 100% empirical in a physicalist sense.
History deals with human motivations.
Both the chosen directions for science and history come from differing aspects of naturalism. In history God cannot be the final ultimate agency but Man shares that role with chance and geography and in science it's the laws of nature.
History is a blend of philosophy and methodology. So where as you can be a scientist and avoid philosophy, you can't escape it in History. Unless you are arguing that history should only deal with where and in what state matter and energy we're in at a certain time and place.
That's my view but as I've said, I'm prepared to be educated by "The Professionals".
. Human motivations are in the terms of historical study, theoretically empirically. That science and history have different goals and different restrictions dies not mean their methodological naturalism comes from different approaches. And as i suspected it makes no difference even if they did, because they both are based around the assumption of methodological naturalism. So the study of history is carried out in all recognised universities in the UK on the assumption of methodological naturalism. Note this is not a point about 'god' specifically but all non naturalistic claims.
-
. Human motivations are in the terms of historical study, theoretically empirically. That science and history have different goals and different restrictions dies not mean their methodological naturalism comes from different approaches. And as i suspected it makes no difference even if they did, because they both are based around the assumption of methodological naturalism. So the study of history is carried out in all recognised universities in the UK on the assumption of methodological naturalism. Note this is not a point about 'god' specifically but all non naturalistic claims.
The History of where matter was and what state it was in is history. But is that exhaustively the definition of History? Seriously? So the questions I want to ask are Is History whatever happened in the past? And How does methodological naturalism of all things help elucidate that comprehensively.
You...don't have to take any action in answering these.
-
The History of where matter was and what state it was in is history. But is that exhaustively the definition of History? Seriously? So the questions I want to ask are Is History whatever happened in the past? And How does methodological naturalism of all things help elucidate that comprehensively.
You...don't have to take any action in answering these.
As you often do on this you elide the concept of history with its study. If, for example, Jesus did miraculously rise from the dead, then it happened, and if we define what happened as history then it is part of history. That's not what is being discussed here though, and won't be what any professional historian you talk to will have a method of establishing. The study of history, as the various posts you have replied to have clearly been talking about, is methodologically naturalistic, for the same reason science is - because that's the methodology we have. Thete is, as far as I can see no methid for studying non natiralust claims, and despite the multitude of times, you have been asked for one, none had appeared.
-
I cantada point out where I've argued that merely that I've said they are different. I will argue it if you like.
You are arguing that history doesn't do God, it's naturalistic but science unlike history is 100% empirical in a physicalist sense.
History deals with human motivations.
Both the chosen directions for science and history come from differing aspects of naturalism. In history God cannot be the final ultimate agency but Man shares that role with chance and geography and in science it's the laws of nature.
History is a blend of philosophy and methodology. So where as you can be a scientist and avoid philosophy, you can't escape it in History. Unless you are arguing that history should only deal with where and in what state matter and energy we're in at a certain time and place.
That's my view but as I've said, I'm prepared to be educated by "The Professionals".
History certainly deals with what different people believe, how various religious beliefs are enacted, the roles that religion has had in politics, power and social conventions and, of course, how those aspects change over time and place and those changes are also within the scope of historical study.
For example, the current role religion plays in US politics differs from its role in UK politics or that in certain areas (like where I am) the influence of Christianity is waning (as confirmed by the last census in Scotland). All of these are within the scope of history and the study of them is methodologically naturalistic so that, for instance, how religion operated in ancient Egypt can be studied without reference to whether or not Ra really did exist.
What is out of scope for history are the study of specific metaphysical and/or non-naturalistic claims, such as Gods or someone miraculously not staying dead, since those sorts of claims would require a method of study suited to claimed non-naturalistic phenomena and that, dear boy, doesn't exist.
It's important to avoid the trap of thinking that because some people believed in a supernatural 'x' that, therefore, this 'x' must be true. If that were the case then the history of religion would become a series of ad pops
-
As you often do on this you elide the concept of history with its study. If, for example, Jesus did miraculously rise from the dead, then it happened, and if we define what happened as history then it is part of history. That's not what is being discussed here though, and won't be what any professional historian you talk to will have a method of establishing. The study of history, as the various posts you have replied to have clearly been talking about, is methodologically naturalistic, for the same reason science is - because that's the methodology we have. Thete is, as far as I can see no methid for studying non natiralust claims, and despite the multitude of times, you have been asked for one, none had appeared.
A lot of this is imo non sequitur to what I've been saying.
Worse it looks like you just tub thumping your wizard realisation that only naturalism has a methodology is 'the most superist, knockdownist response I've ever seen in the annals of Religionethics. You are saying that human motivations are theorietically empirical in History and I reckon that such a belief is unnecessary in history. It is also a positive assertion on your part so you know what you have to do.
-
A lot of this is imo non sequitur to what I've been saying.
Worse it looks like you just tub thumping your wizard realisation that only naturalism has a methodology is 'the most superist, knockdownist response I've ever seen in the annals of Religionethics. You are saying that human motivations are theorietically empirical in History and I reckon that such a belief is unnecessary in history. It is also a positive assertion on your part so you know what you have to do.
In that case, Vlad, it is a relief that you aren't a professional historian (for if you were you wouldn't have lasted long).
Any luck in finding a professional historian who states that NT miracle claims are historical facts? I hope not, for it would be a career-ending moment for them.
To add: 'human motivations' are indeed empirical since they are just examples of biology doing what it does, and the effects of collective/group motivations can also be considered in sociological terms.
-
A lot of this is imo non sequitur to what I've been saying.
Worse it looks like you just tub thumping your wizard realisation that only naturalism has a methodology is 'the most superist, knockdownist response I've ever seen in the annals of Religionethics. You are saying that human motivations are theorietically empirical in History and I reckon that such a belief is unnecessary in history. It is also a positive assertion on your part so you know what you have to do.
Again you are eliding history, and the study of history. My statement as was made clear is about studying history based on the use of methodological naturalism. Which is what is used in all recognised UK universities. Misrepresenting me after I already pointed out your problem is simply tedious. When you want to have a good faith discussion instead of this cheap wankery that you indulge is, ger back to me.
-
In that case, Vlad, it is a relief that you aren't a professional historian (for if you were you wouldn't have lasted long).
Thanks, but I'd be looking to professional historians for an opinion on that.
Any luck in finding a professional historian who states that NT miracle claims are historical facts? I hope not, for it would be a career-ending moment for them.
In my own time Gordon, in my own time.
To add: 'human motivations' are indeed empirical since they are just examples of biology doing what it does
Oh f......Not that again.
-
Again you are eliding history, and the study of history. My statement as was made clear is about studying history based on the use of methodological naturalism. Which is what is used in all recognised UK universities. Misrepresenting me after I already pointed out your problem is simply tedious. When you want to have a good faith discussion instead of this cheap wankery that you indulge is, ger back to me.
I don't think I'm eliding History with the study of history. Are you sure you aren't projecting?
What I am saying is I'd rather check your facts vis a vis the study of history in the UK. If you are right then I question how much that approach tallies with the spirit of History as everything that ever happened.
How history is studied is an arbitrary decision in academia isn't it?
-
I don't think I'm eliding History with the study of history. Are you sure you aren't projecting?
What I am saying is I'd rather check your facts vis a vis the study of history in the UK. If you are right then I question how much that approach tallies with the spirit of History as everything that ever happened.
How history is studied is an arbitrary decision in academia isn't it?
See my reply #103.
-
How history is studied is an arbitrary decision in academia isn't it?
No - else we'd all be qualified historians.
-
No - else we'd all be qualified historians.
Eh?
-
Eh?
It's simple, Vlad - academic study of history isn't arbitrary: it needs relevant methods, knowledge, resources and competence.
-
It's simple, Vlad - academic study of history isn't arbitrary: it needs relevant methods, knowledge, resources and competence.
My apologies, What I meant is that the UK history curriculum in academia is decided by people or persons.
They decide what methods, what knowledge, what resources and what constitutes competence. We also know that those choices change and methods, knowledge and competences go in and out of vogue depending on preferences and opinions.
What constitutes history and historical study.Again people on this forum think of that question as being a done deal where as in the real world, it's still debated.
-
My apologies, What I meant is that the UK history curriculum in academia is decided by people or persons.
They decide what methods, what knowledge, what resources and what constitutes competence. We also know that those choices change and methods, knowledge and competences go in and out of vogue depending on preferences and opinions.
What constitutes history and historical study.Again people on this forum think of that question as being a done deal where as in the real world, it's still debated.
So when you said you are going to talk to 'The Professionals', which earlier you seemed to set greT store by, your actual position is that it's no more valid than Gordin's opinion.
And no one on here has said that what constitutes the study of history is a done deal, rather thar what is done as the study of history in all recognised UK universities is done methodologically naturalistically.
-
So when you said you are going to talk to 'The Professionals', which earlier you seemed to set greT store by, your actual position is that it's no more valid than Gordin's opinion.
And no one on here has said that what constitutes the study of history is a done deal, rather thar what is done as the study of history in all recognised UK universities is done methodologically naturalistically.
Of course it's better to get to get the view of Professional Historians than just rely on Gordon because they are (far) more informed on the subject. Gordon's view of History iimho s guided by what he believes is scientifically possible and impossible so his historical perspective is Jesus didn't rise from the dead because science forbids. Rather than Historical scholarship demonstrating it's wrong.
In a strange way then Gordon and his supporters are making the study of History redundant.
-
Of course it's better to get to get the view of Professional Historians than just rely on Gordon because they are (far) more informed on the subject. Gordon's view of History iimho s guided by what he believes is scientifically possible and impossible so his historical perspective is Jesus didn't rise from the dead because science forbids. Rather than Historical scholarship demonstrating it's wrong.
In a strange way then Gordon and his supporters are making the study of History redundant.
Except that isn't what Gordon has written. And again you are eliding your use of 'History' and 'the study of History' so that your meaning becomes a misrepresentation of what people write.
-
Of course it's better to get to get the view of Professional Historians than just rely on Gordon because they are (far) more informed on the subject. Gordon's view of History iimho s guided by what he believes is scientifically possible and impossible so his historical perspective is Jesus didn't rise from the dead because science forbids. Rather than Historical scholarship demonstrating it's wrong.
In a strange way then Gordon and his supporters are making the study of History redundant.
Do you ever read what people actually write?
Since I don't think that the resurrection is a scientific question, given there is no available method to study non-naturalistic claims, then in the context of this discussion science isn't relevant anyway.
I've simply noted that since the provenance of the NT is so weak that it is not a reliable historical source given the problems and risks involved (see my #86 in this thread). It might satisfy theologians and the faithful, but I doubt it would been seen by professional historians as a reliable source.
-
My apologies, What I meant is that the UK history curriculum in academia is decided by people or persons.
They decide what methods, what knowledge, what resources and what constitutes competence. We also know that those choices change and methods, knowledge and competences go in and out of vogue depending on preferences and opinions.
What constitutes history and historical study.Again people on this forum think of that question as being a done deal where as in the real world, it's still debated.
History is a specialised subject: so of course the 'how to go about it' elements are in the hands of people who have the training, experience and knowledge to pursue the topic.
Or would you prefer that next time an important source is discovered we bypass the professional historians and refer the issue to a bunch of sous chefs working in Italian restaurants?
-
Do you ever read what people actually write?
Since I don't think that the resurrection is a scientific question, given there is no available method to study non-naturalistic claims, then in the context of this discussion science isn't relevant anyway.
I've simply noted that since the provenance of the NT is so weak that it is not a reliable historical source given the problems and risks involved (see my #86 in this thread). It might satisfy theologians and the faithful, but I doubt it would been seen by professional historians as a reliable source.
I've already given you my prescription for claims you refuse to substantiate....outsource them to Professionals.
-
I've already given you my prescription for claims you refuse to substantiate....outsource them to Professionals.
Let us know how you get on - with proper professional historians (and remember to cite them so that we can check their bona fides)
-
Let us know how you get on - with proper professional historians (and remember to cite them so that we can check their bona fides)
Cite them I'll Cite when you do Pal.
-
Cite them I'll Cite when you do Pal.
All recognised UK history departments teach the study of history as a methodological naturalist discipline.
-
Cite them I'll Cite when you do Pal.
Coward - you were the one who was going to consult 'the professionals'.
Mind you I can see why you'd run away from that commitment.
-
All recognised UK history departments teach the study of history as a methodological naturalist discipline.
The closest thesis to what I think Vlad is talking about is Richard Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eye Witnesses'. Here he does stray from methodological naturalist disciplines into 'supernatural' territory. I understand that he sticks to the 'academic guidelines' better in many of his other works.
As for eye-witness testimony: well, the preface to the Book of Mormon contains the sworn statement that various witnesses had 'seen and hefted' the golden plates which Joseph Smith claimed the angel Moroni helped him find. Eye witness testimony is better than third-hand reports, but still offers no methodology for arriving at the truth.
-
The closest thesis to what I think Vlad is talking about is Richard Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eye Witnesses'. Here he does stray from methodological naturalist disciplines into 'supernatural' territory. I understand that he sticks to the 'academic guidelines' better in many of his other works.
As for eye-witness testimony: well, the preface to the Book of Mormon contains the sworn statement that various witnesses had 'seen and hefted' the golden plates which Joseph Smith claimed the angel Moroni helped him find. Eye witness testimony is better than third-hand reports, but still offers no methodology for arriving at the truth.
Eye witness testimony works as part of a methodology, rather than being one, and I argue is part of how we might establish what happened in history. However, both in the study of history, and it's more usual area, law, eye witness testimony is understood within a methodological naturalist framework. It isn't evidence of non naturalistic events because we don't have a methodology for it to fit into for those.
I have no problems accepting that there will be professional historians who believe in non natiralustic events but that's not really the discussion which is how is the study of history carried out, and as far as it is taught in recognised universities in the UK, it is methodoligically naturalistic
-
All recognised UK history departments teach the study of history as a methodological naturalist discipline.
And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
-
And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
oh look you have once again elided the study of history and 'history' . At no point have I said that in recognised universities in the UK. it is declared that the resurrection did not happen. You seem to be confused again by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
-
And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
Just thought I'd post this link on how modern historians view the matter of the historical Jesus. I'd thought the Jewish apocalyptic prophet view was dominant, whilst Dominic Crossan's Jesus the Cynic Sage gained some notoriety for a time. There's a "Jesus the magician"* somewhere - the pagans liked that one, but it has all the drawbacks that Gordon and NS have pointed out with regard to 'supernatural' matters.
*by Morton Smith
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/jesus-as-a-figure-in-history-how-modern-historians-view-the-man-from-galilee/
-
oh look you have once again elided the study of history and 'history' . At no point have I said that in recognised universities in the UK. it is declared that the resurrection did not happen. You seem to be confused again by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
Historians can say that people believed in or reported a resurrection but since they deal in what is most likely they really can't declare that a supernatural event happened.
-
Historians can say that people believed in or reported a resurrection but since they deal in what is most likely they really can't declare that a supernatural event happened.
Or didn't. It's not a claim that makes sense in methodological naturalism
-
And AI tells me frequently that the New Testament does not lack provenance which was Gordon's point.
If all of history in the UK is methodologically naturalistic that imposes as far as I can see limitations IMHO opinion Technically then, Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd.
You seem confused about the two forms of naturalism, as NS notes.
If the study of history is naturalistic the historian could not claim as historical fact anything that is not amenable to naturalistic study: therefore supernatural claims would not meet that criteria - they would be out of scope. To claim the resurrection was a historical event would require a method of investigating the supernatural that doesn't exist, and if it did then 'faith' becomes redundant, so be careful what you wish for.
The best that can be said is that some anecdotes claimed a resurrection but these are decades post hoc, their authors are uncertain, the extent to which mistakes, bias or lies crept in and to what extent there was later editing are all unknowns - therefore provenance is an issue in relation to the resurrection claim. As such it could be said that the resurrection claim is too weak to be a serious proposition from a naturalistic perspective.
Some may choose to believe it but I'd say they couldn't claim it was historical fact without a means to establish that 'fact'.
-
oh look you have once again elided the study of history and 'history' . At no point have I said that in recognised universities in the UK. it is declared that the resurrection did not happen. You seem to be confused again by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
You don't seem to have answered my question here. Let me guess. Like Gordon you have departmental manager syndrome, being used to ask the questions and being in a position of never having to answer any.
-
At no point have I said that in recognised universities in the UK. it is declared that the resurrection did not happen. You seem to be confused again by the difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism.
At no point have you said anything about anything.
-
At no point have you said anything about anything.
Diddums!
-
You don't seem to have answered my question here. Let me guess. Like Gordon you have departmental manager syndrome, being used to ask the questions and being in a position of never having to answer any.
I pointed out why it was both irrelevant and specious.
-
You don't seem to have answered my question here. Let me guess. Like Gordon you have departmental manager syndrome, being used to ask the questions and being in a position of never having to answer any.
Your question "Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd." indicates that you really don't understand the implications of methodological naturalism, since if you did you wouldn't have asked that particular question.
-
Or didn't. It's not a claim that makes sense in methodological naturalism
Indeed.
-
Your question "Should Historians be able to declare that the resurrection never happened rather than "the resurrection is outside the scope of history" and even the latter sounds odd." indicates that you really don't understand the implications of methodological naturalism, since if you did you wouldn't have asked that particular question.
I think Gordon, you'll find anyway not to answer the question.
-
I think Gordon, you'll find anyway not to answer the question.
I don't think I need answer a question that, had you understood better, you wouldn't have asked.
-
Indeed.
Ditto
-
Eye witness testimony works as part of a methodology, rather than being one, and I argue is part of how we might establish what happened in history. However, both in the study of history, and it's more usual area, law, eye witness testimony is understood within a methodological naturalist framework. It isn't evidence of non naturalistic events because we don't have a methodology for it to fit into for those.
I have no problems accepting that there will be professional historians who believe in non natiralustic events but that's not really the discussion which is how is the study of history carried out, and as far as it is taught in recognised universities in the UK, it is methodoligically naturalistic
The study of history is primarily your concern. That it is "The discussion" is something you've steered yourself and attempted to steer me into. If the present study of history is methodologically naturalistic how can it be anything but not fully adequate in addressing that History is what happened.
A focus on methodological naturalism is a philosophical choice.
Of course we must hear and know the methodological naturalistic narrative of history just as we must look at the methodologically naturalist narrative on anything and ask ourselves if we have in it the adequate explanation.
Saying or defending the sentiment "This never happened because it doesn't happen isn't History or the study of history.
-
The study of history is primarily your concern. That it is "The discussion" is something you've steered yourself and attempted to steer me into. If the present study of history is methodologically naturalistic how can it be anything but not fully adequate in addressing that History is what happened.
A focus on methodological naturalism is a philosophical choice.
Of course we must hear and know the methodological naturalistic narrative of history just as we must look at the methodologically naturalist narrative on anything and ask ourselves if we have in it the adequate explanation.
Saying or defending the sentiment "This never happened because it doesn't happen isn't History or the study of history.
But i have specifically said that you can't say that something never happened because the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Indeed that's why i separated 'history' from the 'study of history' and made the point that you can't use it being methodologically naturalistic to say that. So that's a complete misunderstanding of the point.
-
Saying or defending the sentiment "This never happened because it doesn't happen isn't History or the study of history.
I suspect that the methodological naturalist historian would simply say that the claim (the resurrection of Jesus from being dead) isn't a valid historical question because it is a supernatural and not naturalistic claim - so it's out of scope.
One could say there there is no evidence that it did happen because there is no appropriate method of investigating supernatural claims whereby evidence could be obtained: there are only anecdotes that lack provenance, which is where we came in I believe.
-
I suspect that the methodological naturalist historian would simply say that the claim (the resurrection of Jesus from being dead) isn't a valid historical question.
You said that as if it were a good thing.
One could say there there is no evidence that it did happen because there is no appropriate method of investigating supernatural claims whereby evidence could be obtained: there are only anecdotes that lack provenance, which is where we came in I believe.
I suspect historians rarely say that it's not a valid historical question, if at all, and I suspect this is just you making historians in your own image. If history is the question 'what happened' then everything is valid and there is no prior commitment to naturalism. Just 'What happened'.
Even if a historian actually said it was an invalid historical question we wouldn't know because you never provide citations.
-
You said that as if it were a good thing.I suspect historians rarely say that it's not a valid historical question, if at all, and I suspect this is just you making historians in your own image. If history is the question 'what happened' then everything is valid and there is no prior commitment to naturalism. Just 'What happened'.
Even if a historian actually said it was an invalid historical question we wouldn't know because you never provide citations.
In fact, you have yet to cite one historian who is prepared to consider claims of supernatural intervention in history.
-
I suspect historians rarely say that it's not a valid historical question, if at all, and I suspect this is just you making historians in your own image. If history is the question 'what happened' then everything is valid and there is no prior commitment to naturalism. Just 'What happened'.
Even if a historian actually said it was an invalid historical question we wouldn't know because you never provide citations.
I don't need a citation to point out that the resurrection is a non-naturalistic claim - it is a supernatural claim of 'God Did It'. If you believe it actually 'happened' then it is for you to explain how you've established this as a matter of historical fact - but all you have is a bunch of anecdotes that don't stand much scrutiny (because they have no substantive provenance).
That some people said 'x happened', especially where 'x' is a fantastical claim, isn't sufficient to establish that 'x' did indeed happen and can be taken as being historical fact - unless of course you're highly credulous and/or you have an prior emotional commitment to the claim being true.
Anyway - it was you who was scampering off to consult 'the professionals': how is that going?
-
I suspect that the methodological naturalist historian would simply say that the claim (the resurrection of Jesus from being dead) isn't a valid historical question.
Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.
You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.
-
Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.
You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.
When are you going to actually start thinking: if you pose a question you would have an expectation of an answer, and an answer requires a basis to evaluate what the question implies. You may as well ask the question 'are there ghosts?', which requires a method to investigate the supernatural: and there are no methods that apply to the supernatural.
As Christians tend to have 'faith' in the claim 'there was a resurrection', and if they don't have 'faith' they aren't probably Christian (since that claim is the biggie for Christians), and if that is their position, then they are just making a claim. However, if they instead ask 'was there are resurrection' they introduce a degree of doubt and, more importantly, they would need a credible method to come to a credible answer - but since they have no method to confirm the 'God did it' supernatural aspect then the question is a meaningless one.
-
Hang on, Gordon. A claim is not a question.
The question "Was there a resurrection?" is not invalid as far as I can see and indeed it has been the bread and butter of atheist historians like Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier for years.
You had me going for a bit but of course, your comment didn't stand up to closer inspection.
Bart D. Ehrman concurs, highlighting the insurmountable challenge in demonstrating miracles historically: "Even if miracles are possible, there is no way for the historian who sticks strictly to the canons of historical evidence to show that they have ever happened."
(from Ehrman's website https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-resurrection/ )
Not quite sure how you'd support your comment that the question "Was there a resurrection?" has been Ehrman's bread and butter. As far as I can see, his thought has developed fairly logically from his follow-up on Schweitzer's thesis "Jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" (Jesus as a mistaken prophet), through sifting out the possibilities of textual corruption in "Misquoting Jesus" and on to "How Jesus became God" - in other words, how people interpreted what they thought about the figure of Jesus and magnified this image into an ever more grandiose Christology.
-
(from Ehrman's website https://www.bartehrman.com/jesus-resurrection/ )
Not quite sure how you'd support your comment that the question "Was there a resurrection?" has been Ehrman's bread and butter. As far as I can see, his thought has developed fairly logically from his follow-up on Schweitzer's thesis "Jesus - apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium" (Jesus as a mistaken prophet), through sifting out the possibilities of textual corruption in "Misquoting Jesus" and on to "How Jesus became God" - in other words, how people interpreted what they thought about the figure of Jesus and magnified this image into an ever more grandiose Christology.
While it may be correct that History (The study of) doesn't do God and miracles are acts of God, there is the problem raised by the claim that these constitute physical changes and events also a category considered to be the province of History.
I think Bart tends toward the resurrection not happening and this and the fact he is an historian in this field constitute his "bread and butter".
-
While it may be correct that History (The study of) doesn't do God and miracles are acts of God, there is the problem raised by the claim that these constitute physical changes and events also a category considered to be the province of History.
Not really: you can say that there are historical records of people believing that Jesus was resurrected, but your notion that any 'physical changes' that are claimed (and are presumed to be due to supernatural actions) are also within the province of academic historians doesn't work because, and you know this already, there is the problem of what methods can be used to specifically identify 'physical changes' that arose from supernatural intervention.
When you say "miracles are acts of God" you are begging the question. If I were you I'd just stick to 'faith', since your attempts to portray faith beliefs as historical facts just doesn't fly.
-
Not really: you can say that there are historical records of people believing that Jesus was resurrected, but your notion that any 'physical changes' that are claimed (and are presumed to be due to supernatural actions) are also within the province of academic historians doesn't work because, and you know this already, there is the problem of what methods can be used to specifically identify 'physical changes' that arose from supernatural intervention.
] I'm not saying that. Indeed presuming that these physical changes are due to supernatural intervention would be begging the question. Physical change is though the pervue of methodological naturalism.
In the dribs and drabs that are coming to me I have been informed that even if a resurrection were to have been videoed a historian could still not accept a supernatural explanation given the study of history's prior commitment to methodological naturalism and I accept that as the current predicament of academic historyWhen you say "miracles are acts of God" you are begging the question. If I were you I'd just stick to 'faith', since your attempts to portray faith beliefs as historical facts just doesn't fly.
I say that because it's a dictionary and common definition of a miracle. If it's begging the question then so is your presumption that resurrection must be supernatural.
It's funny because I am accusing YOU of passing YOUR faith beliefs off as fact.
-
Your silliness continues: is it the case that Christians believe that the claimed resurrection of Jesus was a divine act, showing that Jesus was not just a mere mortal, or not?
I don't have 'faith beliefs': I'm just pointing out that having 'faith' in fantastical religious superstitions is not something that is justifiable. All I see is a descent into fallacious and wishful thinking, as you continue to demonstrate.
-
Your silliness continues: is it the case that Christians believe that the claimed resurrection of Jesus was a divine act, showing that Jesus was not just a mere mortal, or not?
I don't have 'faith beliefs': I'm just pointing out that having 'faith' in fantastical religious superstitions is not something that is justifiable. All I see is a descent into fallacious and wishful thinking, as you continue to demonstrate.
Ah, You're just getting personal now.
I think we've established what Christians believed and that they've believed it since the early part of the century.
Your claim that you don't have faith beliefs is cobblers. Resurrection are "impossible " was one of yours I recall as were your references to credible (believable) evidence.
Other than that as I also recall you have committed the fallacy of modernity in your attitude to ancient literature and your impression of a first century more gullible than was the case.
-
Ah, You're just getting personal now.
I think we've established what Christians believed and that they've believed it since the early part of the century.
So what - it's the grounds for their beliefs that are the issue.
Your claim that you don't have faith beliefs is cobblers. Resurrection are "impossible " was one of yours I recall as were your references to credible (believable) evidence.
It's more the case that there are no good grounds to think it is possible or credible in the absence of methods to quantify the supernatural.
Other than that as I also recall you have committed the fallacy of modernity in your attitude to ancient literature and your impression of a first century more gullible than was the case.
More credulous, understandably perhaps, given the times they lived in. Even so, the risks of human artifice still applied in antiquity.
Your grasp of fallacies remains tenuous.