DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Ħ on October 25, 2010, 03:59:08 PM
-
This is a continuation of the last several posts of this thread here: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17249.0
The "water baptism" thread dealt specifically with the difference between philosophy and Christian theology (or lack thereof), but any religion is fair game here.
This is the last post of the thread, by j:
It seems that your definition of philosophy is different than mine, which is why we're having issues. I don't regard reading the Bible and believing it as philosophy, but you seem to.
If you use reason and logic, then you use philosophy. Maybe you don't, I don't know. But I can't imagine that scenario.
And have you never asked yourself WHY you believe the bible as absolute truth?
Reading the book, and saying "These facts are true" is completely different than saying, "I wonder what this could possibly mean?"
But how did you conclude that "these facts are true"? Don't you have to understand what things mean in order to "believe" in them, or apply them to your life?
You're making something incredibly simple and twisting it into something introspective and mystical. Which is what most Christians do, by the way, and which is why the Christian church as a whole is a mess.
Incredibly simple? We're talking about a collection of massively varied writings, with different authors, writing styles, intents, and time periods, among other things. Inspired by God or not, you're delusional if you think that any honest person can just sit down and immediately understand what they read. It's a popular idea among Christians who don't want to give too much consideration to things, but it's obviously and demonstrably false.
If you're a strict biblical "literalist" (can't remember the term, sorry :lol), which I get the feeling you might be, it's easy for things to seem simpler, but there are much bigger problems with that view that are probably beyond the scope of this thread. Not that we're not far beyond it already.
Anyway, there are a lot of reasons Christianity is a mess. People thinking "too much" is not one of them. :lol
You base a lot of your ideas around the fact that there are so many methods and views on interpreting Scripture. So many people come to so many different conclusions. But you know why? It's because they took something out of something simple that wasn't there in the first place. If you approach the Bible with a believing heart, interpreting the Bible as meaning what it says, and saying what it means (in other words, literally, then yes, you will run into problems, but not nearly to the extent of a Roman Catholic, for example.
See above. Of course people over-analyze things, but "under-analysis" and a demonizing of knowledge and reason is a much bigger problem.
-J
-
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic. When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
-
Yes and no, but that doesn't stop people from combining them together.
Both Philosophy and Religion aim to answer questions in life. Some philosophy is secular, some is spiritually inspired. Some will use their faith when philosophizing, others won't use any faith at all.
So, it is possible to use philosophy without using religion, but religion doesn't have to be devoid of philosophy.
-
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic. When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
-
*snip*
-
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Come on, Brother. ::)
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic.
So you agree that it's good and necessary to apply reason to "God's revelation", whatever you may consider that to be? Even if you don't, you inevitably use it whether you realize it or not.
When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
It tells me that there are actually flaws in one or both lines of reasoning, despite what it may seem. Why would you make the huge leap from there to your italicized conclusion?
Also, the question could simply be unanswerable. The bounds of logic are abstract, but universal. Surely you agree that there are questions that cannot be answered, even if you hold that the bible is God's revelation?
-J
-
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic. When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Because even if you went with the fundamental assumptions that:
a. there is a God
b. the Bible is 100% God's revelation
you would be extremely restricted in what you could achieve. There is so much knowledge outside of what the Bible covers.
But the point I was getting at is that is when your opinion rests upon the unverifiable, there is no way to debate it. If you start with the belief that x is 100% true and everything else is wrong, there's no room for discussion, especially when x is something that, fundamentally, is unverifiable through scientific, historical, etc. means.
I mean, I'm sure I could produce a long-winded argument why we shouldn't rely on the Bible for investigating geologic history, but I doubt that would shake your beliefs one iota.
-
I can't say I've ever seen the situation where two people present impenetrable arguments of opposing opinions.
The problem with arguing with religion is that the axioms are not only ad hoc, they're not even demonstrable.
-
Yeah, I was kind of being a douche. Usually I make fun of people for grammatical errors (which it wasn't, but I thought it was), but in hindsight it probably not a good idea on the P/R section.
I apologize.
-
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Come on, Brother. ::)
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic.
So you agree that it's good and necessary to apply reason to "God's revelation", whatever you may consider that to be? Even if you don't, you inevitably use it whether you realize it or not.
When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
It tells me that there are actually flaws in one or both lines of reasoning, despite what it may seem. Why would you make the huge leap from there to your italicized conclusion?
Also, the question could simply be unanswerable. The bounds of logic are abstract, but universal. Surely you agree that there are questions that cannot be answered, even if you hold that the bible is God's revelation?
-J
Ah...maybe I'm not being as clear as I should be. My point is that universal logic exists, yes. But my point is also that there always seems to be some kind of flaw in a philopher's argument that one of his opponents will be able to identify. No one has been able to conclusively prove something, where there can be no rebuttal. Even asserting something as fundamental as 2=2 will have some skeptics in doubt.
There's just no answers in philosophy, just questions. That tells me that if I am interested in finding truth, I've got to look elsewhere, since thousands of years of philosophy haven't accomplished anything.
-
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Come on, Brother. ::)
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic.
So you agree that it's good and necessary to apply reason to "God's revelation", whatever you may consider that to be? Even if you don't, you inevitably use it whether you realize it or not.
When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
It tells me that there are actually flaws in one or both lines of reasoning, despite what it may seem. Why would you make the huge leap from there to your italicized conclusion?
Also, the question could simply be unanswerable. The bounds of logic are abstract, but universal. Surely you agree that there are questions that cannot be answered, even if you hold that the bible is God's revelation?
-J
Ah...maybe I'm not being as clear as I should be. My point is that universal logic exists, yes. But my point is also that there always seems to be some kind of flaw in a philopher's argument that one of his opponents will be able to identify. No one has been able to conclusively prove something, where there can be no rebuttal. Even asserting something as fundamental as 2=2 will have some skeptics in doubt.
There's just no answers in philosophy, just questions. That tells me that if I am interested in finding truth, I've got to look elsewhere, since thousands of years of philosophy haven't accomplished anything.
If someone doubts that 2 is equal to itself, that doesn't mean that 2=2 isn't true. It just means someone is an idiot.
Anyway, then why all the different denominations that can't agree on which interpretation of the bible is correct? That to me implies the very same thing you are talking about.
-
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Come on, Brother. ::)
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic.
So you agree that it's good and necessary to apply reason to "God's revelation", whatever you may consider that to be? Even if you don't, you inevitably use it whether you realize it or not.
When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
It tells me that there are actually flaws in one or both lines of reasoning, despite what it may seem. Why would you make the huge leap from there to your italicized conclusion?
Also, the question could simply be unanswerable. The bounds of logic are abstract, but universal. Surely you agree that there are questions that cannot be answered, even if you hold that the bible is God's revelation?
-J
Ah...maybe I'm not being as clear as I should be. My point is that universal logic exists, yes. But my point is also that there always seems to be some kind of flaw in a philopher's argument that one of his opponents will be able to identify. No one has been able to conclusively prove something, where there can be no rebuttal. Even asserting something as fundamental as 2=2 will have some skeptics in doubt.
There's just no answers in philosophy, just questions. That tells me that if I am interested in finding truth, I've got to look elsewhere, since thousands of years of philosophy haven't accomplished anything.
If someone doubts that 2 is equal to itself, that doesn't mean that 2=2 isn't true. It just means someone is an idiot.
Anyway, then why all the different denominations that can't agree on which interpretation of the bible is correct? That to me implies the very same thing you are talking about.
That's what it means to me too. :lol But you still have people that claim that.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the denominational differences, and differences in interpretation. I assume you are making the claim that since interpretations are debated constantly, there's really no assurance there either? Well, my answer to that would be that a literal interpretation ends that type of debate. (or at least, interpretational debate)
-
This is not an opinion that is very conducive to debate.
You're right--it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Care to argue with it?
Come on, Brother. ::)
J, you're missing the point. I'm not telling you that knowledge or reason are bad. I am telling you that knowledge or reason outside of God's revelation will lead to no concrete answers, contradictions, and inevitably, a lost of trust in logic.
So you agree that it's good and necessary to apply reason to "God's revelation", whatever you may consider that to be? Even if you don't, you inevitably use it whether you realize it or not.
When two philosophers present their arguments, and there don't seem to be any flaws in either of them, and they arrive at opposite conclusions, what does that tell you? That human logic and reason is not enough.
It tells me that there are actually flaws in one or both lines of reasoning, despite what it may seem. Why would you make the huge leap from there to your italicized conclusion?
Also, the question could simply be unanswerable. The bounds of logic are abstract, but universal. Surely you agree that there are questions that cannot be answered, even if you hold that the bible is God's revelation?
-J
Ah...maybe I'm not being as clear as I should be. My point is that universal logic exists, yes. But my point is also that there always seems to be some kind of flaw in a philopher's argument that one of his opponents will be able to identify. No one has been able to conclusively prove something, where there can be no rebuttal. Even asserting something as fundamental as 2=2 will have some skeptics in doubt.
There's just no answers in philosophy, just questions. That tells me that if I am interested in finding truth, I've got to look elsewhere, since thousands of years of philosophy haven't accomplished anything.
If someone doubts that 2 is equal to itself, that doesn't mean that 2=2 isn't true. It just means someone is an idiot.
Anyway, then why all the different denominations that can't agree on which interpretation of the bible is correct? That to me implies the very same thing you are talking about.
That's what it means to me too. :lol But you still have people that claim that.
I'm not really sure what you mean by the denominational differences, and differences in interpretation. I assume you are making the claim that since interpretations are debated constantly, there's really no assurance there either? Well, my answer to that would be that a literal interpretation ends that type of debate. (or at least, interpretational debate)
Not really. I mean, you will always have those that think the bible was never meant to be taken literally, and those (like yourself) that think it should be taken literally. I don't think you're going to be able to eliminate the first group just because you think it should be interpreted literally. Its human nature to interpret things differently, and I doubt that will change.
-
How can literalism end anything if everything you have was at least 5 decades after the purported event? I know, I know, supposedly the writers were all divinely inspired, that's not based on anything more than theological wishful thinking. And, you would have to know who the writers even were.
rumborak
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
I know people hate this word but....dictation. Leaves out human error. But that's just my view.
-
And what if the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired, but someone edited their work? What if Jesus was actually the son of Gob?
-
I'm not really sure what you mean by the denominational differences, and differences in interpretation. I assume you are making the claim that since interpretations are debated constantly, there's really no assurance there either? Well, my answer to that would be that a literal interpretation ends that type of debate. (or at least, interpretational debate)
As I stated in the other thread, this is demonstrably false.
I do agree that philosophy rarely answers questions, though. And while you're right that in a technical sense, nothing can ever be "proven" per se, that's not really relevant. We can know things with near absolute certainty, and practically, that's good enough. There comes a point, like Seventh Son said, where doubting something with vast evidence in its favor makes you less of a "cautious skeptic" and more of an "idiot".
-J
-
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
-
And what if the writers of the Bible were divinely inspired, but someone edited their work? What if Jesus was actually the son of Gob?
Well, the argument goes that everybody along the line was inspired too, including the pagan Germanic tribes that developed the English language you're reading your version of the Bible in.
rumborak
-
Didn't we have a debate a while back where someone was claiming that the King James version was the Bible because it said it was?
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
I know people hate this word but....dictation. Leaves out human error. But that's just my view.
Please elaborate. From my understanding, humans are prone to error and bias. Does God hack into the person and write everything down then?
-
This is a continuation of the last several posts of this thread here: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17249.0
The "water baptism" thread dealt specifically with the difference between philosophy and Christian theology (or lack thereof), but any religion is fair game here.
This is the last post of the thread, by j:
It seems that your definition of philosophy is different than mine, which is why we're having issues. I don't regard reading the Bible and believing it as philosophy, but you seem to.
If you use reason and logic, then you use philosophy. Maybe you don't, I don't know. But I can't imagine that scenario.
And have you never asked yourself WHY you believe the bible as absolute truth?
I believe the Bible is true because so much of it is historically verifiable. the amount that is historically verifiable actually goes up more and more each day.
Reading the book, and saying "These facts are true" is completely different than saying, "I wonder what this could possibly mean?"
But how did you conclude that "these facts are true"? Don't you have to understand what things mean in order to "believe" in them, or apply them to your life?
if there is something in the bible you don't understand it's usually explained somewhere else. Some stuff like Revelation 2:17 isn't. We have no idea what the point is about the stone but it's not a doctrinal statement so it doesn't really matter. I assume it meant something to the church of Smyrna which is good enough for me. You'll find most things that you can't find explained in other scripture don't have doctrinal value (I think, I haven't really done a survey of the bible focussing specifically on this sort of thing.) If you find one let me know.
You're making something incredibly simple and twisting it into something introspective and mystical. Which is what most Christians do, by the way, and which is why the Christian church as a whole is a mess.
Incredibly simple? We're talking about a collection of massively varied writings, with different authors, writing styles, intents, and time periods, among other things. Inspired by God or not, you're delusional if you think that any honest person can just sit down and immediately understand what they read. It's a popular idea among Christians who don't want to give too much consideration to things, but it's obviously and demonstrably false.
and languages, don't forget languages. However, If it's all divinely inspired by an unchangeable God it must all fit together...Remember it's a progressive unfolding of revelation.
I will concede that no one can "immediately" understand the whole bible perfectly. that's why we have pastors that go to bible colleges so that they can learn as much as they can and help us understand. That's why prominent pastors write commentaries for other pastors. eventually we'll get better and better.
In the meantime those of us who don't know the bible that well have the main point of the bible in the Gospels. That's what christians everywhere agree on. Jesus died for our sins and rose again in victory 3 days later. He was God incarnate and sinless which is why his sacrifice was effective.
If you're a strict biblical "literalist" (can't remember the term, sorry :lol), which I get the feeling you might be, it's easy for things to seem simpler, but there are much bigger problems with that view that are probably beyond the scope of this thread. Not that we're not far beyond it already.
Anyway, there are a lot of reasons Christianity is a mess. People thinking "too much" is not one of them. :lol
Actually there's only one reason why Christianity is a mess.
Sin. because of sin we're all selfish. Because of selfishness people take out the stuff they don't like from the bible. because of selfish laziness people don't read their bible and meditate on it as much as they should and as a result they aren't as open to God's work in their lives.
You base a lot of your ideas around the fact that there are so many methods and views on interpreting Scripture. So many people come to so many different conclusions. But you know why? It's because they took something out of something simple that wasn't there in the first place. If you approach the Bible with a believing heart, interpreting the Bible as meaning what it says, and saying what it means (in other words, literally, then yes, you will run into problems, but not nearly to the extent of a Roman Catholic, for example.
See above. Of course people over-analyze things, but "under-analysis" and a demonizing of knowledge and reason is a much bigger problem.
-J
-
How can literalism end anything if everything you have was at least 5 decades after the purported event? I know, I know, supposedly the writers were all divinely inspired, that's not based on anything more than theological wishful thinking. And, you would have to know who the writers even were.
rumborak
Actually like I demonstrated in another thread: The gospels were written no later than 30 years after Jesus death.
Paul's letters were actually written even earlier than the earliest gospel. (Mark) some of Paul's stuff clocks in around the 40's. that's roughly 10 years after Jesus death.
Mark wrote What peter told him. Peter was one of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John)
Matthew was one of Jesus 12 Disciples
Luke travelled with Paul
John was also one of Jesus inner 3.
2 eye witnesses, 1 faithful reporter of an eyewitness and Luke. if you doubt Luke's authenticity read his introduction. Then compare and contrast him with other gospels.
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
I know people hate this word but....dictation. Leaves out human error. But that's just my view.
Please elaborate. From my understanding, humans are prone to error and bias. Does God hack into the person and write everything down then?
That God reached into the library of their vocabulary, selected the words to be used, and told the writers what to write. That's why a lot of the prophets didn't even understand what they wrote themselves.
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
I know people hate this word but....dictation. Leaves out human error. But that's just my view.
Please elaborate. From my understanding, humans are prone to error and bias. Does God hack into the person and write everything down then?
That God reached into the library of their vocabulary, selected the words to be used, and told the writers what to write. That's why a lot of the prophets didn't even understand what they wrote themselves.
OK, even if this were true, which version is definitive? We don't have their first drafts. We have a dozen or so prominent translations. Which one is the Bible?
-
Actually like I demonstrated in another thread: The gospels were written no later than 30 years after Jesus death.
Paul's letters were actually written even earlier than the earliest gospel. (Mark) some of Paul's stuff clocks in around the 40's. that's roughly 10 years after Jesus death.
Mark wrote What peter told him. Peter was one of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John)
Matthew was one of Jesus 12 Disciples
Luke travelled with Paul
John was also one of Jesus inner 3.
2 eye witnesses, 1 faithful reporter of an eyewitness and Luke. if you doubt Luke's authenticity read his introduction. Then compare and contrast him with other gospels.
None of that is fact.
-
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
except for the imaginary number system. And algebra. And the number 0 does it exist?
The speed of light is the only physical absolute...so they say. I have heard arguments to the contrary though.
Also...are they doing it in series of beeps or are they just assuming that an alien that has had absolutely no contact with Earth will understand the human language(s) it's being transmitted in?
-
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
I might hesitate to say that even it is "absolute", but it's certainly the only discipline for which it can be considered. And for all practical purposes, it is anyway.
@Phil: I think you missed a quote or /quote tag somewhere. :lol
-J
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
I know people hate this word but....dictation. Leaves out human error. But that's just my view.
Please elaborate. From my understanding, humans are prone to error and bias. Does God hack into the person and write everything down then?
That God reached into the library of their vocabulary, selected the words to be used, and told the writers what to write. That's why a lot of the prophets didn't even understand what they wrote themselves.
Well, what if those words were not meant to be taken literally? Again, if no one is able to understand God, there is no way of knowing if those words were meant to inspire imagery or to be taken word-for-word. I personally say go with what makes the most sense to you. That's what I did! :biggrin:
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
except for the imaginary number system. And algebra. And the number 0 does it exist?
The speed of light is the only physical absolute...so they say. I have heard arguments to the contrary though.
Also...are they doing it in series of beeps or are they just assuming that an alien that has had absolutely no contact with Earth will understand the human language(s) it's being transmitted in?
Are you seriously doubting 0 being an actual number? Really? Really?
-
Actually like I demonstrated in another thread: The gospels were written no later than 30 years after Jesus death.
Paul's letters were actually written even earlier than the earliest gospel. (Mark) some of Paul's stuff clocks in around the 40's. that's roughly 10 years after Jesus death.
Mark wrote What peter told him. Peter was one of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John)
Matthew was one of Jesus 12 Disciples
Luke travelled with Paul
John was also one of Jesus inner 3.
2 eye witnesses, 1 faithful reporter of an eyewitness and Luke. if you doubt Luke's authenticity read his introduction. Then compare and contrast him with other gospels.
None of that is fact.
Prove it. I'm starting to get sick of people on here taking a well backed up post and just saying something equivalent to "nuh uhhhhhh"
-
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
I might hesitate to say that even it is "absolute", but it's certainly the only discipline for which it can be considered. And for all practical purposes, it is anyway.
@Phil: I think you missed a quote or /quote tag somewhere. :lol
-J
:lol yeah sorry about that :P
-
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
except for the imaginary number system. And algebra. And the number 0 does it exist?
The speed of light is the only physical absolute...so they say. I have heard arguments to the contrary though.
Also...are they doing it in series of beeps or are they just assuming that an alien that has had absolutely no contact with Earth will understand the human language(s) it's being transmitted in?
No, all those examples you cited are absolute. Imaginary numbers are not "imaginary", they're just ways we represent more abstract concepts. They have very real implications in many disciplines of science and mathematics.
The speed of light is, according to our contemporary understanding of physics, an absolute, yes.
As for a transmission, it would probably be a series of tones. If | was a tone, a transmission would take the form of:
| || ||| ||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||
-
Also, what's to say that the writers that were "Divinely Inspired" couldn't have simply misinterpreted what God was trying to tell them? After all, humans are not perfect and its possible that human biases meshed with divine inspiration, no?
I know people hate this word but....dictation. Leaves out human error. But that's just my view.
Please elaborate. From my understanding, humans are prone to error and bias. Does God hack into the person and write everything down then?
That God reached into the library of their vocabulary, selected the words to be used, and told the writers what to write. That's why a lot of the prophets didn't even understand what they wrote themselves.
OK, even if this were true, which version is definitive? We don't have their first drafts. We have a dozen or so prominent translations. Which one is the Bible?
That's an interesting question. Well, all the originals today are probably destroyed. Even in the New Testament, a lot of the Old Testament documents were destroyed. Yet Jesus and a bunch of others still refer to the transcriptions they had as "Scripture." And they probably had the Septuagint, which is the main Greek translation of the Hebrew. If they had access to "the word of God", then we probably do too...but Scripture isn't 100% clear as to how we are supposed to know what's what. But I'm sure if you worked on it hard enough, you'd be able to. Most of the versions agree with each other, for the most part, anyway.
-
Actually like I demonstrated in another thread: The gospels were written no later than 30 years after Jesus death.
Paul's letters were actually written even earlier than the earliest gospel. (Mark) some of Paul's stuff clocks in around the 40's. that's roughly 10 years after Jesus death.
Mark wrote What peter told him. Peter was one of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John)
Matthew was one of Jesus 12 Disciples
Luke travelled with Paul
John was also one of Jesus inner 3.
2 eye witnesses, 1 faithful reporter of an eyewitness and Luke. if you doubt Luke's authenticity read his introduction. Then compare and contrast him with other gospels.
None of that is fact.
Prove it. I'm starting to get sick of people on here taking a well backed up post and just saying something equivalent to "nuh uhhhhhh"
Fine, get sick of it. There is nothing wrong with what I said. None of what you posted is fact. It is supposition.
Are there reasons to accept some of them as probable? Yes. But none of them are facts.
-
Actually, mathematics is the only absolute. There's a reason that the best bet for making contact with an alien civilization is by broadcasting/receiving a series of prime numbers.
I might hesitate to say that even it is "absolute", but it's certainly the only discipline for which it can be considered. And for all practical purposes, it is anyway.
@Phil: I think you missed a quote or /quote tag somewhere. :lol
-J
:lol yeah sorry about that :P
No worries, I just think you brought up some interesting points in that post that will probably be overlooked.
Unlike this post:
Actually like I demonstrated in another thread: The gospels were written no later than 30 years after Jesus death.
Paul's letters were actually written even earlier than the earliest gospel. (Mark) some of Paul's stuff clocks in around the 40's. that's roughly 10 years after Jesus death.
Mark wrote What peter told him. Peter was one of Jesus inner circle (Peter, James and John)
Matthew was one of Jesus 12 Disciples
Luke travelled with Paul
John was also one of Jesus inner 3.
2 eye witnesses, 1 faithful reporter of an eyewitness and Luke. if you doubt Luke's authenticity read his introduction. Then compare and contrast him with other gospels.
None of that is fact.
Prove it. I'm starting to get sick of people on here taking a well backed up post and just saying something equivalent to "nuh uhhhhhh"
All hef said was that those aren't "facts", and he's correct.
-J
-
While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history. I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."
-
While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history. I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."
What does the one have to do with the other?
-
While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history. I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."
What does the one have to do with the other?
Just saying that a historian could pick up all the documents pertaining to...Peter, say...and establish him as a real, historic character.
-
No hang on. How can you *prove* that none of what I said is fact? It's historically verifiable!
-
While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history. I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."
What does the one have to do with the other?
Just saying that a historian could pick up all the documents pertaining to...Peter, say...and establish him as a real, historic character.
??? I'm not saying that Peter wasn't a real, historic character.
-
No hang on. How can you *prove* that none of what I said is fact? It's historically verifiable!
You are obviously using some strange usage of the words "fact", "prove", and "verifiable" with which I was previously unaware.
-
Well, first of all, you don't deal with absolutes in the past, especially in an era and region with as few historical sources as turn of the millenium Judea. Second of all, many of the "facts" you posted are highly debated, because of the aforementioned fundamental uncertainty. For example, the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew is an academic subject that there is no real degree of certainty to.
-
While they might not be tangible "facts," they seem just as factual as any other snippet of ancient history. I could present to you a ton of documents demonstrating Plato as a historical individual, and it would be just as "factual."
What does the one have to do with the other?
Just saying that a historian could pick up all the documents pertaining to...Peter, say...and establish him as a real, historic character.
??? I'm not saying that Peter wasn't a real, historic character.
Ok, well....Phil said "Luke travelled with Paul"....that idea arises in more than one epistle, to the point where I think a historian would say, "Yeah, he probably did travel with Paul." In other words, historical "fact." History is just probability, more than anything else. It's weighing the evidence, and, well, the evidence leans in favor of Luke travelling with Paul more than it does for Luke NOT travelling with Paul.
-
No hang on. How can you *prove* that none of what I said is fact? It's historically verifiable!
You are obviously using some strange usage of the words "fact", "prove", and "verifiable" with which I was previously unaware.
Could you please explain yourself? You're not really generating room for debate here.
-
Ok, well....Phil said "Luke travelled with Paul"....that idea arises in more than one epistle, to the point where I think a historian would say, "Yeah, he probably did travel with Paul." In other words, historical "fact." History is just probability, more than anything else. It's weighing the evidence, and, well, the evidence leans in favor of Luke travelling with Paul more than it does for Luke NOT travelling with Paul.
The evidence doesn't lean one way or the other.
But now it's family time.
-
Ok, well....Phil said "Luke travelled with Paul"....that idea arises in more than one epistle, to the point where I think a historian would say, "Yeah, he probably did travel with Paul." In other words, historical "fact." History is just probability, more than anything else. It's weighing the evidence, and, well, the evidence leans in favor of Luke travelling with Paul more than it does for Luke NOT travelling with Paul.
The evidence doesn't lean one way or the other.
But now it's family time.
If you made a for/against list, you would have multiple things to put in the "for" column, but there's nothing at all to put in the "against" column, so I would argue that the evidence does lean in favor of what Phil is saying (at least for this particular case).
-
Come on guys. :facepalm: A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".
-J
-
Come on guys. :facepalm: A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".
-J
But it DOES qualify it as probable. I mean, right? That's how historians do their thing, especially with ancient history.
-
Come on guys. :facepalm: A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".
-J
But it DOES qualify it as probable. I mean, right? That's how historians do their thing, especially with ancient history.
Absolutely (assuming it's the case on this particular topic). But it's still not a fact.
-J
-
...so is there such a thing as "historical fact?" And where do you draw the line between "historically probable" and "historically factual"?
-
...so is there such a thing as "historical fact?" And where do you draw the line between "historically probable" and "historically factual"?
That's a good question. Strictly speaking, no, there is no such thing as a historical fact. But of course that doesn't work well when we go to talk about history, simply because we'd have to throw in "allegedly" every second word :lol
As for when it crosses the line from "probable" to "factual", it would likely have to be around the point when there's no serious academic opposition to the event/whatever in question. Even that's subjective, but it's the best you can do.
Anyways, I mentioned in the other thread about how I was writing an essay about sources from the early Roman Republic. There's a figure in the history of the Roman Republic named Gnaeus Marcius. He is referred to in almost every available source (Pictor, Livy, Plutarch, Appian) as a Roman noble who won renown in a war against the Volscians during the siege of the town of Corioli, and was bestowed the title "Coriolanus." Then almost every source goes on to recount his exile from Rome and his assumption of the leadership of the Volsci in another war against Rome. The sources claim he won a series of victories, and led his forces to the gates of Rome until he was turned away by the pleas of his wife and mother who still lived in the city.
Now, despite nearly every source recounting the latter part of that story (after the victory at Corioli), many historians now believe it didn't happen, and doubt the existence of the man himself. It's a case, BrotherH, where you can't take a historian's word at face value. Ultimately, a historical account (especially before the spread of historiographical writing, although Luke as a historian is in this category) is merely a basis for further research. One doesn't gauge historicity by drawing a "For" and "Against" column for a given historical (or non-historical) event. It's a lot more complicated than that.
-
Come on guys. :facepalm: A supposed historical event having more evidence in its favor than an alternative does not qualify it as a "fact".
-J
But it DOES qualify it as probable. I mean, right? That's how historians do their thing, especially with ancient history.
Absolutely (assuming it's the case on this particular topic). But it's still not a fact.
-J
At which point does the amount of evidence to the affirmative make something a fact?
For example
Did Julius Caesar exist?
What about Plato?
-
Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts". I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources. Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.
-
Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts". I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources. Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.
Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.
Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.
-
Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts". I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources. Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.
Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.
Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.
Uhhhhhh no
Jesus didn't write any books. We have dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato. He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries. He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers.
I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous. There is no way to justify what you just said.
-
Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.
rumborak
-
Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts". I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources. Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.
Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.
Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.
Uhhhhhh no
I don't think Jesus wrote any books. He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries. He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers. We have literally dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.
I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous. There is no way to justify what you just said.
You're right. Jesus didn't write any books himself, but biographies were written within 40 years of his death which quote him to the point where several of the biographies quote the same words that Jesus said. He also taught a generation of Theologians who went out and planted churches all over the Mediterranean.
Which brings me to my next point: Jesus may not have conquered wide swathes of countries. (That wasn't his mission) but his followers planted churches and wrote creeds and had an impact upon history to this very day and will do so in the future.
I can go into more detail in a couple of days.
-
Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.
rumborak
I'm not just making stuff up and selling it as fact. do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?
Seriously. Prove to me that the gospels aren't historical texts and that there isn't zero collateral before you say i'm making stuff up.
-
Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts". I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources. Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.
Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.
Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.
Uhhhhhh no
I don't think Jesus wrote any books. He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries. He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers. We have literally dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.
I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous. There is no way to justify what you just said.
You're right. Jesus didn't write any books himself, but biographies were written within 40 years of his death which quote him to the point where several of the biographies quote the same words that Jesus said. He also taught a generation of Theologians who went out and planted churches all over the Mediterranean.
Which brings me to my next point: Jesus may not have conquered wide swathes of countries. (That wasn't his mission) but his followers planted churches and wrote creeds and had an impact upon history to this very day and will do so in the future.
I can go into more detail in a couple of days.
None of this means that there's more historical evidence for Jesus. As an apocalyptic Jewish preacher leading a small congregation shortly before the destruction of the Second Temple, there's obviously not going to be much history written at the time about him. Why would they? Caesar tore apart and ultimately took absolute control of the biggest power in the world at the time. Of course there's more historical evidence for Caesar, even discounting the letters and books we have that he wrote himself.
Interestingly enough, Caesar also one-ups Jesus in another regard: there are eye-witnesses to his ascension to the Heavens as a god.
-
do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?
Lots of people do. Don't blame them for it. :lol
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
-
Well, for those two we have overwhelming evidence for both, to the extent that it's so massively probable that they lived that it's acceptable, imo, to call their existences "facts". I mean we have preserved writings from both, as well as a myriad of different references to them from a variety of different sources. Their impacts were too large and too well observed to discount their existence.
Despite that there is *more* evidence for Jesus than there ever was or will be for those two.
Not only that but the stuff that was written about him was written at a time much closer to his death than either of the two.
Uhhhhhh no
I don't think Jesus wrote any books. He didn't conquer wide swathes of countries. He didn't teach a generation of mathematicians and philosophers. We have literally dozens of written works by Caesar and Plato.
I think Jesus existed, but to say that we have the same historical evidence for him as we do for Caesar or Plato is absolutely ludicrous. There is no way to justify what you just said.
You're right. Jesus didn't write any books himself, but biographies were written within 40 years of his death which quote him to the point where several of the biographies quote the same words that Jesus said. He also taught a generation of Theologians who went out and planted churches all over the Mediterranean.
Which brings me to my next point: Jesus may not have conquered wide swathes of countries. (That wasn't his mission) but his followers planted churches and wrote creeds and had an impact upon history to this very day and will do so in the future.
I can go into more detail in a couple of days.
None of this means that there's more historical evidence for Jesus. As an apocalyptic Jewish preacher leading a small congregation shortly before the destruction of the Second Temple, there's obviously not going to be much history written at the time about him. Why would they? Caesar tore apart and ultimately took absolute control of the biggest power in the world at the time. Of course there's more historical evidence for Caesar, even discounting the letters and books we have that he wrote himself.
Interestingly enough, Caesar also one-ups Jesus in another regard: there are eye-witnesses to his ascension to the Heavens as a god.
Um Acts 1
What books did Caesar write himself? What are the dates of the earliest copies?
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.
-
Um Acts 1
What books did Caesar write himself? What are the dates of the earliest copies?
Yes, Acts 1 is a history, but it's that and Tacitus. That has nothing on Caesar, whom practically every single Mediterranean historian wrote about.
Caesar wrote a series of letters between himself and Cato, wrote a commentary on his conquest of the Gauls, a commentary on the Civil War, as well as some poetry and speeches.
His commentary on the Gallic Wars is his most famous work. It was written shortly after his victory against the Gauls in 50 BC. We have the original text of it.
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
I realize. But it seemed from your post that you thought that it was that sort of thing going on here. Religion does not enter into my argument at all; history does. I should probably have used "one" instead of "you".
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.
Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this. It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.
-
Sorry Phil...but I do believe that there is more evidence for the existence of Caesar than for the existence of Jesus. Although, there is substantial evidence for both, from my estimation. But we've all come to agreement of Jesus's existence--I don't see what all the fuss is about.
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.
Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this. It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.
Correct me if i'm wrong but there are 10 copies of the commentary of the Gallic wars. the earliest being written 950 years AFTER Jesus death.
I'm referencing this page: https://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm
I'll also be using John Dickson's book "The Christ Files" (https://www.thechristfiles.com.au) as a reference for most of my historical claims as well.
This list will grow as I do more research on the subject. Dr John Dickson did his PhD on 1st Century Jewish History and is a Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University in Sydney.
could you please reference me your source?
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.
Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this. It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.
Correct me if i'm wrong but there are 10 copies of the commentary of the Gallic wars. the earliest being written 950 years AFTER Jesus death.
i'm referencing this page: https://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm
could you please reference me your source?
I'd doubt that many existing copies of the commentary are in Greek. It was written in Latin, and its use as a teaching tool for Latin is well documented.
As for the oldest existing manuscript, this site https://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4068821 claims two 9th century manuscripts from France, with a total of about 75 existing worldwide.
-
BrotherH, this has nothing to do with atheists vs. Christians vs. whatever. If you say there's more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar or Plato, you are wrong. There is no two ways about it.
I didn't say that.
I did. I am not wrong. There are no two ways about it.
Phil, there isn't a single historian (you may be hard pressed to find a single DTF user, as well) who will support you on this. It's an absolute mockery of the field of history to hold this position.
Correct me if i'm wrong but there are 10 copies of the commentary of the Gallic wars. the earliest being written 950 years AFTER Jesus death.
i'm referencing this page: https://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/ca/ca_06.htm
could you please reference me your source?
I'd doubt that many existing copies of the commentary are in Greek. It was written in Latin, and its use as a teaching tool for Latin is well documented.
As for the oldest existing manuscript, this site https://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4068821 claims two 9th century manuscripts from France, with a total of about 75 existing worldwide.
Sorry, I had auto refresh on and had to keep retyping my replies
I'll also reference John Dickson's book "The Christ Files" www.thechristfiles.com.au alot and more books when I get more time to do research.
Now.
How can you claim to have the original manuscript when that's the oldest manuscript that you have? and theer are only 75 in existance?
There are several papyrus fragments of the gospels dated to within 220 years of Jesus death.
after that there are several more Greek New Testaments 300-400 years after Jesus death, and thousands more after that. Even though this is a few centuries afterwards it's still 500 years before the earliest transcript of Caesars text.
EDIT: revised dates of earliest manuscript fragments.
-
Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.
rumborak
I'm not just making stuff up and selling it as fact. do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?
Seriously. Prove to me that the gospels aren't historical texts and that there isn't zero collateral before you say i'm making stuff up.
First of all, I don't have to prove a negative, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Unless you want to prove in turn to me that there are no yellow sheep. So no, you have to prove that the gospels are historical records.
Second of all, Acts is not collateral. It's written by a guy who himself claims to have written one of the gospels. And Paul never met Jesus anyway, he claims to have known apostles.
Collateral evidence would be any kind of outside record of Jesus. And of that, there is essentially zero. All I have seen so far was outside mention of the followers, and that long after Jesus' death.
Regarding collateral evidence of Caesar, ask Gaul.
rumborak
-
Phil, you can't just make up stuff and sell it as fact. There is essentially zero collateral evidence for Jesus. All there really are are the gospels, and even those are second-hand and plagiarized off each other.
rumborak
I'm not just making stuff up and selling it as fact. do you think i'd say anything here if I wasn't able to back myself up?
Seriously. Prove to me that the gospels aren't historical texts and that there isn't zero collateral before you say i'm making stuff up.
First of all, I don't have to prove a negative, because it is impossible to prove a negative. Unless you want to prove in turn to me that there are no yellow sheep. So no, you have to prove that the gospels are historical records.
Second of all, Acts is not collateral. It's written by a guy who himself claims to have written one of the gospels. Collateral evidence would be any kind of outside record of Jesus. And of that, there is essentially zero.
Regarding collateral evidence of Caesar, ask Gaul.
rumborak
No one asked for collateral evidence of Caesar's ascension.
Guinea Pig said that Caesar trumped Jesus by having eyewitnesses to his ascension. I replied with Acts 1 where there were about 120 eyewitnesses. On that note I'd like to see Guinea Pig's reference for that and how early after Caesar's ascension it was written and where the earliest manuscript for it is.
Regarding collateral evidence for the Gospel's early existance, Church Father's were referencing a bunch of the NT books as early as 95 AD Clement who was a bishop in rome wrote a letter to corinth in about 95 AD and references the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. This was still the first generation after the Apostles. As little as 25 years after the books were written and as much as 45.
-
Nobody questions the historicity of Acts itself, i.e. whatever Paul and the others did as described in Acts. The point is the historicity of Jesus himself. Acts adds nothing to that claim.
All other outside mentions of Jesus are about the followers, and never (I think) preceding 70AD or something around that.
BTW, I'm not saying there wasn't a guy called Jesus. But I think very little of the important claims are true. As I understand it, the nativity is usually considered an invention and no relation of history. To quote (former) Bishop Durham, "there is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance."
Here's my understanding thus far of what Jesus was: A Jewish teacher with very commendable morals, who ended up on the wrong side of the law with the Romans and ended up being killed. The initial followers mostly evaporated after they realized the Kingdom wouldn't come as promised, and then Paul and a few others essentially revamped the theology around it and ran with it, creating current Christianity.
rumborak
-
Nobody questions the historicity of Acts itself, i.e. whatever Paul and the others did as described in Acts. The point is the historicity of Jesus himself. Acts adds nothing to that claim.
All other outside mentions of Jesus are about the followers, and never (I think) preceding 70AD or something around that.
rumborak
Acts 1 recounts Jesus Ascension...
You know Christianity was regarded as just a sect of Judaism for a while.
Interestingly since you don't doubt the historicity of Acts let me point something out to you. Acts 18:2 refers to Claudius orders all jews to leave rome. This happened in 53 or sometime around there. Claudius did this because riots were being caused at the incitement of someone names 'Chrestus'. Again at this point Christians were regarded as a sect of Judaism by the Romans. Suetonius refers to it as well and i've mentioned this in another thread. Priscilla and Aquila were Christians not Jews and Paul joined them. This goes to show that christians were not regarded as separate to Jews at this point. This point is AD 52 or 53 definitely before 54 and definitely before the 70s
-
Well, noone knows whether this actually referred to Jesus. Chrestus apparently was a common name to have in those days.
But, again, my point is that while there probably was a Jewish teacher called Jesus who died at the cross, what the gospels and Paul say is highly doubtful and full of exaggeration and syncretism. So, Jewish teacher who prophesized the imminent kingdom of God, but died of unfortunate circumstances? Yes. Born in crib in Bethlehem and resurrected 3 days after his death? No. Both claims (born in crib and resurrection) are syncretism from what I understand.
rumborak
-
Well, noone knows whether this actually referred to Jesus. Chrestus apparently was a common name to have in those days.
But, again, my point is that while there probably was a Jewish teacher called Jesus who died at the cross, what the gospels and Paul say is highly doubtful and full of exaggeration and syncretism. So, Jewish teacher who prophesized the imminent kingdom of God, but died of unfortunate circumstances? Yes. Born in crib in Bethlehem and resurrected 3 days after his death? No. Both claims (born in crib and resurrection) are syncretism from what I understand.
rumborak
How are they synchretistic? Can you point to me what claims are exaggerated?
Why would some Jewish teacher have died on the cross? Jews weren't allowed to kill a man and Romans would usually have regarded the situation as a civil matter and not worthy of death.
Nobody questions the historicity of Acts itself, i.e. whatever Paul and the others did as described in Acts. The point is the historicity of Jesus himself. Acts adds nothing to that claim.
All other outside mentions of Jesus are about the followers, and never (I think) preceding 70AD or something around that.
BTW, I'm not saying there wasn't a guy called Jesus. But I think very little of the important claims are true. As I understand it, the nativity is usually considered an invention and no relation of history. To quote (former) Bishop Durham, "there is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance."
Here's my understanding thus far of what Jesus was: A Jewish teacher with very commendable morals, who ended up on the wrong side of the law with the Romans and ended up being killed. The initial followers mostly evaporated after they realized the Kingdom wouldn't come as promised, and then Paul and a few others essentially revamped the theology around it and ran with it, creating current Christianity.
rumborak
Missed this post before.
commendable morals, a greater than average understanding of the Old Testament, the ability to speak Hebrew and Aramaic and presumably a pretty charismatic teacher. It's disputed whether he was even a magician.
The initial followers didn't evaporate at all. If you believe Acts after Jesus died there were 120. a few weeks later 2000 were added to their number. This number grew throughout Acts as churches were planted (Paul by the way converted about 2 years after christianity's inception. He had been persecuting Christians up to this point. If there were enough followers of Christ 2 years after his death for there to be cause enough to go to OTHER cities to kill them there must've been more) and continued to grow to the point where they were recognised as a separate religion to the Jews and even Persecuted. Nero blamed the fire of Rome on them and let's not forget the Circus. (we're at 60 years post mortem now) Despite this persecution christianity practically exploded in quantity of adherents. to this day roughly 1/3 of the Earth's population call themselves Christian.
-
We have four written accounts of his resurrection, plus at least five accounts, maybe six, of a post-resurrection appearance to multitudes of people. That's pretty impressive for an ancient document. If Jesus really didn't rise from the dead, we would uncover documents that say, "Look guys, he didn't really rise from the dead. Quit lying, guys. I was there, and nothing happened like he said it would." Or you'd see something like "Yeah, I talked to Mary Magdelene, and she says nothing happened, so you guys are all liars." But there's really nothing like that.
You have detailed written sources.
You have eyewitnesses that attested to what happened and could provide details if asked.
We don't have any proof from Christian prosecutors that say he didn't really rise from the dead. Do you realize how easy it would have been to defeat the Christian movement? Just unroll the rock, take the body out, parade it around, and say "You guys fell for his bluff--it's been four days and he's still dead." Why didn't anything like that happen? Don't give me that bogus theory that they "stole the body." Yeah, right. Don't forget the disciples were unsure of Jesus being the Messiah as well. I seriously doubt they would put it all on the line for a guy that apparently got pwned on the cross. Just look at Peter's reaction--he denied any association with the guy, and he was one of the most "faithful" disciples.
That's how the church grew, because there was so many contemporaries that they could talk to to verify the evidence.
-
You have to be more realistic, seriously. Again, the resurrection doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts we have. What could possibly be an explanation for leaving out this cornerstone of Christian faith? "lol, I forgot to copy that part! "?
The only *reasonable* explanation is, it simply wasn't part of the original versions of the gospels, and was added later.
BTW, I can only recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus", which is about textual analysis of the existing manuscripts in the attempt to reconstruct the source versions.
rumborak
-
You have to be more realistic, seriously. Again, the resurrection doesn't appear in the oldest manuscripts we have. What could possibly be an explanation for leaving out this cornerstone of Christian faith? "lol, I forgot to copy that part! "?
The only *reasonable* explanation is, it simply wasn't part of the original versions of the gospels, and was added later.
BTW, I can only recommend the book "Misquoting Jesus", which is about textual analysis of the existing manuscripts in the attempt to reconstruct the source versions.
rumborak
lol @ Misquoting Jesus. I'll get to that bogus book after I finish my paper, probably tomorrow. :P
-
Excellent. "Bogus book" is always a great start to expanding your knowledge. Save yourself the time and don't pretend to read the book.
Oh well, whoever indoctrinated you did an excellent job at never making you question what you think you know.
rumborak
-
Excellent. "Bogus book" is always a great start to expanding your knowledge. Oh well, whoever indoctrinated you did an excellent job at never making you question what you think you know.
rumborak
So you don't continue to flame me as being "indoctrinated" or ignorant, I regarded the book as "true" before I learned about some really basic fallacies the author made.
-
Why bother reading it? You know all about it before opening it it seems. Saves a lot of time that way I guess. Makes for better sleeping too, to know you were right all along anyway.
rumborak
-
Why bother reading it? You know all about it before opening it it seems. Saves a lot of time that way I guess. Makes for better sleeping too, to know you were right all along anyway.
rumborak
This is the second time you've mentioned that "the original manuscripts didn't mention the resurrection"
This is a fallacy. The oldest manuscripts of one of the FOUR Gospel accounts doesn't have a resurrection *appearance* of Jesus, however they still say that Jesus had risen.
The reason for this is that it is the fulfilment of an earlier prophecy that Jesus had made saying that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. That is the intended purpose of the abrupt ending.
The focus of the book is more about the progressive revelation of Jesus as the Son of God which comes to a climax in 15:37-39 where Jesus dies. The temple curtain is torn in half vertically and the centurion confesses "surely this man was the son of God" the scene at the tomb is the subsequent anticlimax. Like the end of PMU
-
Why bother reading it? You know all about it before opening it it seems. Saves a lot of time that way I guess. Makes for better sleeping too, to know you were right all along anyway.
rumborak
Read it already. Dismissed some points as superstitious. Thought it raised some interesting points. Investigated said points. Disgarded as an ill-sourced piece of material.
We all have our own biases, but it is important to test what we believe. Your bias--you clearly believed that the Bible was messed up anyway. Of course you're going to walk away from a book that teaches what you already believed, unchanged. I think you ought to test what you believe by picking up some material in support of what you don't believe. That's what we Christians do all the time. While we're on the subject of recommending books to one another, The Case For Christ by Lee Strobel is a good starting point, in my opinion. And he lists follow-up material if you're interested in specifics. And I may need to double-check, but I think he addresses Misquoting Jesus as well.
-
Of course only one gospel is missing it, the one everyone acknowledges as the oldest, Mark. That is the very point here.
Besides, it's not just the ending is missing in those manuscripts, other ones have plain different endings. Meaning, different copyists patched on different endings according to what they thought fit best.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
Dude seriously, just live with the fact that what you hold in your hands as the canon was chosen pretty arbitrarily and edited heavily by copyists.
rumborak
-
Of course only one gospel is missing it, the one everyone acknowledges as the oldest, Mark. That is the very point here.
Besides, it's not just the ending is missing in those manuscripts, other ones have plain different endings. Meaning, different copyists patched on different endings according to what they thought fit best.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16
Dude seriously, just live with the fact that what you hold in your hands as the canon was chosen pretty arbitrarily and edited heavily by copyists.
rumborak
Yep. And?
If you want an explanation for it: it's likely that some people just thought the original ending was too abrupt so they could have gotten mark to tag something on the end. It doesn't really change anything though. well...not the short ending. The long ending is pretty weird. Sounds like it's referring to Paul though so it could have been written after he reached Rome. I stick to the ending at vs 8 because it's the oldest and most likely to be right.
-
Yeah, but by ending it at 8, all you have left of Jesus' resurrection story is the phrase "he was risen". Which to me sounds like a normal phrase indicating that someone went to heaven.
The real "meat" of the resurrection happens in the added sections.
We could do the same game with the nativity story, which is also believed to be tacked on.
rumborak
-
Yeah, but by ending it at 8, all you have left of Jesus' resurrection story is the phrase "he was risen". Which to me sounds like a normal phrase indicating that someone went to heaven.
The real "meat" of the resurrection happens in the added sections.
We could do the same game with the nativity story, which is also believed to be tacked on.
rumborak
The phrase "he was risen" can connote both, I agree. But when looked at in conjunction with the Jesus's multiple prophecies about his bodily resurrection, I am lead me to believe that the Israelites, the original authors, and the copyists all understood "he was risen." But when the term "risen" is used, as it is today as well as it was back then, I don't think the natural instinct is to infer "heaven."
For example: He has risen...out of the blackness CHAOS. I don't infer "heaven" at all. ;)
-
Yeah, but by ending it at 8, all you have left of Jesus' resurrection story is the phrase "he was risen". Which to me sounds like a normal phrase indicating that someone went to heaven.
The real "meat" of the resurrection happens in the added sections.
We could do the same game with the nativity story, which is also believed to be tacked on.
rumborak
Mk 16:4-7
" 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
then the women were filled with fear. Not exactly a reaction you have to hearing that someone's soul has risen to heaven..
a/ stone rolled away - wasn't a small stone
b/ unidentified man dressed in white - The women would have known the man if he was one of the people who followed Jesus (not just the 12) yet he knew the name of Peter. the Disciples weren't exactly rockstars at that point yet.
c/ Jesus body gone - He has risen
-
I dont understand how you can conclude some of these things from your bible quotes.
If the stone was initially rolled to cover the tomb, couldnt it just as easily be rolled away by the same number of living humans, and not a zombie jesus?
Also, jesus' body being gone doesnt necessarily mean he has risen from the dead...couldnt it mean it was stolen by the people that rolled away the stone?
Just askin
-
I dont understand how you can conclude some of these things from your bible quotes.
If the stone was initially rolled to cover the tomb, couldnt it just as easily be rolled away by the same number of living humans, and not a zombie jesus?
Also, jesus' body being gone doesnt necessarily mean he has risen from the dead...couldnt it mean it was stolen by the people that rolled away the stone?
Just askin
That is a very common objection. However, when you look at it, that doesn't make sense from two perspectives:
1) The opponents perspective. Opponents of Christ's message surely would have been on guard (which they were stated to have been in front of the tomb in at least one of the gospels, if I recall correctly) in order to prevent the type of thing you're describing. Obviously, it was a pretty big deal--Jesus was an influential guy that gathered a lot of followers in his life. Something like that attracts the attention of the highest political elite.
2) The proponent's perspective. The only real suspects of the grave robbery would be the disciples or some of Christ's other top followers. However, what motive would they have? Sure, they would fool a great many people...but at what cost? If they indeed stole the body, the only ones who would know it would be the disciples. However, that would mean that they would have understood that Christ wasn't the Messiah after all...so the disciples essentially lived their lives in persecution and fear for something they knew to be untrue. Sure, there is a shame factor of being wrong...but would an individual (an esteemed Jewish individual at that) trade their entire life for a cause that is ultimately a lie? I doubt that. Not only that, but it would have taken a team of individuals and an organized plan to carry out the robbery...something that seems quite unlikely, given the short amount of time between Christ's death and "resurrection."
-
It doesn't even make sense that Jesus would have been buried. That's sort of contrary to the whole point of crucifixion.
-
It doesn't even make sense that Jesus would have been buried. That's sort of contrary to the whole point of crucifixion.
You made that up. While it's certainly debatable if the resurrection was documented in the earliest manuscripts, as rumborak pointed out, this is a laughable point of discussion...included in a significant number of early manuscripts.
-
I think it's becoming laughable how you're trying to just shrug away the massive issues the gospels have concerning their historicity. Point is, you *want* Jesus to have been resurrected. Just like the copyists who added the section.
rumborak
-
It doesn't even make sense that Jesus would have been buried. That's sort of contrary to the whole point of crucifixion.
You made that up. While it's certainly debatable if the resurrection was documented in the earliest manuscripts, as rumborak pointed out, this is a laughable point of discussion...included in a significant number of early manuscripts.
This isn't laughable. The whole point of crucifixion from a Roman perspective was that the bodies wouldn't be taken off the cross, but left up as an object lesson. It was an extreme rarity that any victims would be taken down. The fact that the Gospels say he was taken down and buried doesn't mean that is what actually happened.
Now I'm not saying it definitely didn't happen the way the Gospels say. I'm just saying that in the midst of saying how many things in the bible are "historically verifiable," the account of Jesus being taken down from the cross and buried flies in the face of everything we know historically about the Roman pactice of crucifixion.
-
BTW, here's a bit of a tangent, but this always struck me as a bizarre:
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
They said nothing to anyone. So, how do we know? I mean, obviously the account wasn't written by one of the women.
It's the same thing with this verse:
1And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Who heard this, in order to write it down?
rumborak
-
BTW, here's a bit of a tangent, but this always struck me as a bizarre:
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
They said nothing to anyone. So, how do we know? I mean, obviously the account wasn't written by one of the women.
It's the same thing with this verse:
1And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Who heard this, in order to write it down?
rumborak
Well, I'm sure you know, but the answer I'll give to you is that God divinely revealed that information to whoever wrote it. But I see your point--it indicates that parts of the gospel accounts could simply be a narrative. What viewpoint you use to approach the issue is going to drastically affect what you decide about it...
-
If you want to use that argument, you would have to explain why the different gospels disagree about what actually happens, specifically John vs. the Synoptic gospels. You would think divine "dictation" wouldn't make them write down different things.
rumborak
-
It would've been really useful if God had told them the date of Jesus' birth so we don't have this 10 year discrepancy between Luke and Matthew, too.
-
It would've been really useful if God had told them the date of Jesus' birth so we don't have this 10 year discrepancy between Luke and Matthew, too.
That's one of the main reasons that I not only discount the concept of divine inspiration of Scripture, but I also don't give much credence to the birth narratives whatsoever.
And yes, I am a Christian.
-
BTW, here's a bit of a tangent, but this always struck me as a bizarre:
Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
They said nothing to anyone. So, how do we know? I mean, obviously the account wasn't written by one of the women.
It's the same thing with this verse:
1And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
Who heard this, in order to write it down?
rumborak
Presumably they just told someone later...Maybe they told no one on their way to Peter. Peter was teh one who Mark scribed for so it'd make sense if they went to peter and told no one on the way. that's how Mark would know that they told no one.
The romans wouldn't have usually buried someone who was crucified. it only happened because Joseph of Arimathea (who was on the Sanhedrin - the Highest Jewish civil court) Requested it specifically of Pilate that he bury Jesus in his plot.
Mk 15:43-46
43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. 45When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. 46So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.
While Jesus was praying alone at that time He did come and teach the apostles for 40 days after his resurrection. I reckon I don't think it's hard to believe that one of the apostles asked him what he prayed that night before he died while he was alone.
PS I'm not sure where this 10 year thing comes from. Could you please explain it to me?
-
Matthew's account of the nativity includes Jesus and his family living in Egypt until the death of Herod the Great. We know that this occurred in 4 BC.
Luke's nativity story has Joseph and the pregnant Mary traveling to Bethlehem in response to a census ordered by Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The census (such as it was) administered by Quirinius was around 6 AD.
That's a difference of at least 10 years between the two accounts as far as when Jesus was born. Again, using historically verifiable data, as you seem want to do. The two accounts directly contradict each other. Jesus cannot have been born both before the death of Herod the Great and after the census of Quirinius.
-
Which gospel is it again that got geographics wrong, i.e. the author was writing about an area he didn't actually know?
rumborak
-
Mark, I think.
-J
-
Matthew's account of the nativity includes Jesus and his family living in Egypt until the death of Herod the Great. We know that this occurred in 4 BC.
Luke's nativity story has Joseph and the pregnant Mary traveling to Bethlehem in response to a census ordered by Augustus, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The census (such as it was) administered by Quirinius was around 6 AD.
That's a difference of at least 10 years between the two accounts as far as when Jesus was born. Again, using historically verifiable data, as you seem want to do. The two accounts directly contradict each other. Jesus cannot have been born both before the death of Herod the Great and after the census of Quirinius.
Ok. It's possible that Quirinius was consul in syria in about 7BC and Luke uses the word for governor broadly. But i dunno about this one. I'll have to ask about it. I'll get back to you.
Luke is actually prety widely regarded as a very accurate historian, so I don't think he would get the date wrong by 10 years. It seems more likely to me that there's just something that history lost. People used to discount John because he mentioned a pool that supposedly didn't exist. They found it mid to late (I think it could have been in the seventies) last century.
Which gospel is it again that got geographics wrong, i.e. the author was writing about an area he didn't actually know?
rumborak
can you be more specific?
-
Ok. It's possible that Quirinius was consul in syria in about 7BC and Luke uses the word for governor broadly. But i dunno about this one. I'll have to ask about it. I'll get back to you.
Luke is actually prety widely regarded as a very accurate historian, so I don't think he would get the date wrong by 10 years. It seems more likely to me that there's just something that history lost. People used to discount John because he mentioned a pool that supposedly didn't exist. They found it mid to late (I think it could have been in the seventies) last century.
Luke is widely regarded as a very accurate historian by believing Christians, primarily because certain things (like this) are dated very precisely for the time (in the days of such and such, when so and so was in office). The problem here is that Matthew is also being precise. They're just completely different. It's a contradiction, and there are no two ways about it.
-
Ok. It's possible that Quirinius was consul in syria in about 7BC and Luke uses the word for governor broadly. But i dunno about this one. I'll have to ask about it. I'll get back to you.
Luke is actually prety widely regarded as a very accurate historian, so I don't think he would get the date wrong by 10 years. It seems more likely to me that there's just something that history lost. People used to discount John because he mentioned a pool that supposedly didn't exist. They found it mid to late (I think it could have been in the seventies) last century.
Luke is widely regarded as a very accurate historian by believing Christians, primarily because certain things (like this) are dated very precisely for the time (in the days of such and such, when so and so was in office). The problem here is that Matthew is also being precise. They're just completely different. It's a contradiction, and there are no two ways about it.
I wouldn't be so quick to disregard it. Luke and Matthew both wrote their gospels within one generation of Jesus passing (they had to matthew was one of the 12 and Luke was probably one of the 120 you find in Acts 1) an historical discrepancy would have been obvious to the people of the time. If there is an apparent contradiction then it's much more likely that there's something we don't know than something he doesn't know.
-
Except there was this city state called Rome, and they liked to keep records and stuff.
-
Except there was this city state called Rome, and they liked to keep records and stuff.
Yeah there was. So why would Luke have contradicted the Roman records if he was writing to a Roman official We don't have all of rome's records and there is already evidence to suggest that Luke was right anyway. Why is it so unlikely that he knew what he was talking about? He was a doctor, not some knucklehead.
EDIT:
noo fred!
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17894.0
-
My answer to this question is no based entirely on historical evidence. Philosophy and religion WERE placed under the same unbrella and it was only in the last few hundred years that people have decided to separate out philosophy and religion when philosophy is used to help us define the terms that are part of the "divine knowing". There are independent philosophical stances yes, but philosophy as a discipline and religion are most certainly homogenious. Religion reveals the divine world in human and divine terms while philosophy can reveal the divine world only in human terms.