23 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is in quiet desperation that I hit the "Post" button.
Per my ususal tack, I am doing a fine job of fouling up a good point. I'll attempt greater clarity speaking this time around.
From my perspective, it appears that all religions have at least two key ingredients in common. All of them carry with them proverbs and axioms by which to live, as well as some type of work (demand) upon the adherents in ord ...[text shortened]... have just blown up in my face. It is in quiet desperation that I hit the "Post" button.
I understand, believe me. Been there.
I also understand what you are saying. The only thing I would add (whether it’s really a disagreement or not, I’m not sure) is that none of that can be unhinged from the particular theology and definition of salvation of which it is part.
The version of Christianity you’re articulating (and I’m not going to here argue the correctness of it one way or the other), to over-simplify, goes something like: “Quit trying. You can’t do it anyway. Just accept the means of grace.”
Interestingly, non-theistic Zen (again, to oversimplify) says something like: “Quit trying. You’re just making more illusion. Let it all drop, and just see clearly.” I would add, “whatever there is to see.”
Salvation, in Zen, really just means being free of illusion (there may be some Zen Buddhists who think in terms of nirvana versus the cycle of birth-an-rebirth, of course).
I’m starting to think that the core dividing line between the different religions is not what one must do to attain “salvation,” but whether that “salvation” entails an after-life of some sort. Zen, I would say does not; some streams of Judaism do not—that is, it is not an entailment for them, though it may well be part of the mythography.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI can confidently say that over 90% of Christians have not investigated the posibility that Jesus was a myth. I also believe that without faith, the evidence for Jesus ever existing is not conclusive though neither is the evidence that he is just a myth.
The histrocity is simply a required basis for further invesitgation. Were Jesus shown to be myth, no further investigation would be necessary.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo there was a Roman centurian by the name of Arthur. Was he a king? Did he have a round table? Did he go on a quest for the "Holy Grail". Did he have a knight by the name of Sir Lancelot? What makes a character? His name or his deeds? If none of the deeds took place then did the character still exist?
(Incidentally, one of the major schools of Arthurian thought is that he was a real figure, possibly a Roman centurion.)
Contrast this with Jesus where the early literature already focuses on the historicity of Jesus and leaves no doubt as to no more than one degree of separation between author and Jesus himself.
As mentioned before, according to the website I gave, paul never implies the historicity of Jesus nor claims to have met anyone who met him.
Since Paul wasn't setting out to write a biography of Jesus, it shouldn't surprise anyone that he wasn't creating an encyclopedia entry; any more than I should be expected to provide detailed birthplace, marriage and family footnotes about William Shakespeare in a paper on Romeo and Juliet.
EDIT: One very striking biographical event that Paul does write about is the Last Supper.
Mark's Gospel was written not long after Paul's epistles -- and there is no shortage of biographical details there.
And yet these "biographical details" as I have already said are clearly mostly made up to suit the author. The fact that they differ significantly from Gospel to Gospel (here also include all the gospels rejected by most Christians) shows that at least some of the details in some of the Gospels are just plain wrong.
Then you are one of those who hold to a campfire-conspiracy theory?
It seems apparent that very little of Jesus' biography was known to any writter before the Gospels (and for a while afterwards), this suggests that they were the primary source of this information.
I see three more or less equal possibilities:
1. A campfire situation probably started not too long before pauls time but will very little detail (those were embelished later). This is not unusual even in the present day (any number of examples here such as the Moonies).
2. A number of legends from various sources resulting in a small group of believers that slowly gained popularity with a lot of 'visions' etc embelishing the faith. Note that people experiencing compelling visions is not that unusual and in many cases the content is proovably wrong and / or conflicts with others visions.
3. One (or more) person by the name of Jesus did exist and was possibly eventually crucified.
However even in the 3rd case, the evidence that much of the new testament is wrong is overwhelming. (major events mentioned were not recorded by any other historians as we would have expected).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI guess you can also confidently say that you are 90% sure it's also a myth that we are living in the year 2006 A.D.?
I can confidently say that over 90% of Christians have not investigated the posibility that Jesus was a myth. I also believe that without faith, the evidence for Jesus ever existing is not conclusive though neither is the evidence that he is just a myth.
23 Oct 06
1 edit
i haven't read the whole of this thread. i read the first post, then the last post. i then concluded that this has turned into a "prove that jesus existed! i have! no you haven't! yes i have! sod off you...well, you get the idea..." thread. thus my input shall be short and simple,
"Is Christianiy the best religion?"
we have 3 possibilities.
1. christianity is wrong and at least one other is right,
2. christianity is wrong, and so are the rest. Although there may be a God or higher power,
3. christianity is right.
(i've discounted 4. chrisitanity is right along with some or all other religions as "jesus is the only way" thus we have a paradox.)
now, if 2 is the correct answer then this debate is interesting, if rather pointless. However, if either 1 or 3 is the truth then the answer is obvious. the correct religion is the best one!
why is there 9 pages on this?!?
ah well. i'm off to get my head around nullspaces and ranges of functions. linear maths! yay! while your here, do you know what the nullity is if the nullspace is 0? e.g. f(a,b,c) maps to (c,b,a) has nullspace (0,0,0)? then the range is (1,0,0), (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) thus the nullity must be 0, ja? or am i just confused?...
anyone?
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerGuess again.
I guess you can also confidently say that you are 90% sure it's also a myth that we are living in the year 2006 A.D.?
As I do not believe in God, I can confidently say that I am 100% sure that we are not living in the 2006 th year of the lord. Is it a myth that we are? No. I dont think any educated person today believes that Jesus was conceived in 0 A.D.
From Wikkipedia:
A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false.
However, we are living in the year 2006 A.D., and that is not a myth. A definition is neither right nor wrong and can not be a myth.
23 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwh: "What makes a character? His name or his deeds? If none of the deeds took place then did the character still exist?"
So there was a Roman centurian by the name of Arthur. Was he a king? Did he have a round table? Did he go on a quest for the "Holy Grail". Did he have a knight by the name of Sir Lancelot? What makes a character? His name or his deeds? If none of the deeds took place then did the character still exist?
[b]Contrast this with Jesus where the early litera ents mentioned were not recorded by any other historians as we would have expected).[/b]
When looking at historical persons, one looks for the core of reality around which myths and legends may grow up. Over time, a centurion and his lieutenants may become a King and his Knights with incredible adventures; but the core of reality remains.
twh: "As mentioned before, according to the website I gave, paul never implies the historicity of Jesus nor claims to have met anyone who met him."
Paul clearly mentions Simon Peter, as well as James.
EDIT: Besides, even a superficial reading of Paul's epistles makes it amply clear he is talking about a flesh-and-blood Jesus.
twh: "And yet these "biographical details" as I have already said are clearly mostly made up to suit the author. The fact that they differ significantly from Gospel to Gospel ... shows that at least some of the details in some of the Gospels are just plain wrong."
Some - not all. For instance, I have yet to hear of a Gospel detailing the end of Christ's life where he dies not of crucifixion but, say, a wild boar. The four canonical Gospels may differ on where Christ was at particular dates or sequence of events, but essentially agrees on the geographical area of Christ's ministry, the names and origins of his Apostles, his former profession, the Resurrection etc.
As vistesd points out, you're committing the basic fallacy of saying that since some details in the Gospels cannot be correct (either because you adhere a priori to some kind of naturalism or because of differences with other Gospels), none of them can be.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThen where do the various rumours of Christ turning up in india and other places come from?
Some - not all. For instance, I have yet to hear of a Gospel detailing the end of Christ's life where he dies not of crucifixion but, say, a wild boar. The four canonical Gospels may differ on where Christ was at particular dates or sequence of events, but essentially agrees on the geographical area of Christ's ministry, the names and origins of his Apostles, his former profession, the Resurrection etc.
Of course the Gospels must agree on the crucifixion as that is central to the faith (and mentioned by paul though I dont think he mentions the location).
We all know that the Canonical gospel writters used each others material or a common source / sources (I think even you agree on that). I believe there has been some question as to his former profession though.
As vistesd points out, you're committing the basic fallacy of saying that since some details in the Gospels cannot be correct (either because you adhere a priori to some kind of naturalism or because of differences with other Gospels), none of them can be.
I did not commit this fallacy. I never said that all the details "cannot be correct". Read my posts again. I said thier correctness is highly questionable and certainly not guaranteed based solely on the evidence.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThen where do the various rumours of Christ turning up in india and other places come from?
Then where do the various rumours of Christ turning up in india and other places come from?
Of course the Gospels must agree on the crucifixion as that is central to the faith (and mentioned by paul though I dont think he mentions the location).
We all know that the Canonical gospel writters used each others material or a common source / sources (I thin ...[text shortened]... correctness is highly questionable and certainly not guaranteed based solely on the evidence.
19th century Tibet, IIRC. More precisely, one 19th cent. European traveller's account of encountering a mysterious document in a Tibetan monastery. A subsequent abbot of the monastery repudiated those claims.
Of course the Gospels must agree on the crucifixion as that is central to the faith
Why would crucifixion need to be a priori so central to the faith that they would have to make it up? Crucifixion never held any central position in Jewish theology (indeed, it would make no sense for the Messiah to be executed at all).
It's more reasonable to assume that the crucifixion actually happened and a soteriology was built around it than the other way around.
We all know that the Canonical gospel writters used each others material or a common source / sources
To some extent, yes. But it's also clear that each of the Gospels relies on some original material as well.
I did not commit this fallacy. I never said that all the details "cannot be correct". Read my posts again.
I have. In arguing for a completely fictional Jesus (as opposed to an actual Jesus who was subsequently mythologised), you are arguing precisely that.
I said thier correctness is highly questionable and certainly not guaranteed based solely on the evidence.
We can go into the question of the reliability of the Gospels if you wish (I'll need to do some research on this).
23 Oct 06
Let me make an attempt at mediation on one point here—
The fallacy would lie in either (a) claiming that since elements of myth are present, it must all be myth; or (b) claiming that since elements of historical fact are present, it must all be historical fact.
I’m not sure that t.w. is pushing that “must.” (His third scenario above indicates he is not.)
Since I am not a historian, I rely on strictly secondary research—in which the majority of scholars seem to conclude that Jesus was a historical person (though some suggest that the person described in the gospels may be a conflation of more than one real person; Yeshua, or Yeshu, was probably not an uncommon Jewish name*). Interestingly enough, Vermes—who, if he had any ax to grind, one would suspect it would be in the opposite way—concludes that a sufficient historical element can be detected in the gospels themselves to justify accepting Jesus’ existence.
However, I wouldn’t push that “must” in the other direction either: t.w.’s three alternative scenarios (none of which require a “conspiracy theory” ) seem plausible. Historical research is not closed, and I doubt that attempts to sort out the strands of “histo-myth” in the texts is likely to become non-controversial.
* According to Matthew, Barabbas first name was Jesus—Jesus Barabbas, literally “Jesus, son of the father.”
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]Why would crucifixion need to be a priori so central to the faith that they would have to make it up?
[b]Then where do the various rumours of Christ turning up in india and other places come from?
19th century Tibet, IIRC. More precisely, one 19th cent. European traveller's account of encountering a mysterious document in a Tibetan monastery. A subsequent abbot of the monastery repudiated those claims.
Of course the Gospels must agree on ion of the reliability of the Gospels if you wish (I'll need to do some research on this).
It wouldn’t. The problem is that we tend to read back through layers of subsequent soteriological theory (particularly protestant—I can’t speak for the RCC, but for Orthodoxy, what is central is incarnation; which, of course, is a question that history can hardly answer, which is why even Christian historians, qua historians, are wont to distinguish between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith” ).
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdHowever, I wouldn’t push that “must” in the other direction either: t.w.’s three alternative scenarios (none of which require a “conspiracy theory” ) seem plausible.
Let me make an attempt at mediation on one point here—
The fallacy would lie in either (a) claiming that since elements of myth are present, it must all be myth; or (b) claiming that since elements of historical fact are present, it must all be historical fact.
I’m not sure that t.w. is pushing that “must.” (His third scenario above indicates he is no ...[text shortened]... to Matthew, Barabbas first name was Jesus—Jesus Barabbas, literally “Jesus, son of the father.”
1. The first one is the straight out conspiracy theory we've been talking about (albeit with a little early fuzziness).
2. The second one still leaves the question of why all these legends should "coalesce" around some guy named Yeshua from Nazareth; which brings us to
3. Which I've always maintained is the most reasonable position to hold even if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ.
or (b) claiming that since elements of historical fact are present, it must all be historical fact.
Here, the work of Sherwin-White may be interesting; essentially he compared various versions of Greek myths over time to study the rate of "mythologisation" and concluded that the rate at which Jesus's story "mythologised" is far too rapid.