Lewis's Trilemma - split from Matthew topic

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Spud]

Translation please.

Jesus was alluding to his own divinity in what he said and did.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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,?

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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