Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 11-23-2007, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Thanks for this reference - It is surprising that these references by others are so late.

Justin wrote ~ 140-150 CE?

Yes, or so I am led to believe.

Quote:

Thank you. It's good to know that others share this same situation.

Do you think that the existence of the unapproved Gospels like Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Hebrews, Judas etc. indicates a general awareness of the Gospel story? i.e. details of the Virgin Birth, disciples, crucifixion.

Do some of these "apocryphal" works not have their origin as late first early second century & if so would this not suggest that the "gospel" stories were out there in general circulation at this earlier time (?)

I would assume that all these works come post Mark.

Quote:

I am thinking that this would represent a possible refutation of the idea put forward by Earl Doherty that the Jesus story had an earthly context no earlier than mid-second century.

-evan

I would assume that the Jesus story gained an earthly context when Mark published his book. I have no clear evidence of an earthly context prior to that.

I am not sure of Mr. Doherty's position regarding the Gospels, so can't really say if this would be a possible refutation of his general thesis.

GakuseiDon · 11-23-2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

You read me well - I am interested in extracting myself from Christian belief if indeed, a Christian belief in the person of Jesus is unfounded & not based in a historical reality.

I just don't think there is enough evidence to come down firmly on any one side. There is only a small set of data, and though it appears to support a historicist case, it has been filtered through centuries of historicist Christians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

I am not interested in a pragmatic religion that has its adherents who remain faithful not because its true but because it works for them or provides comforting answers to life's big questions.

Out of interest, when you thought that the Gospels were dated early, how did Christianity work for you? What's changed now that you believe that the Gospels may not be dated so early?

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Looking for evidence of an early church which had an understanding of Jesus based on an Historical Jesus as presented in the Gospels, would go some way in answering the charge that the early church had no access or understanding of the "gospel-derived" Jesus we talk about today.

The evidence just isn't there, eheffa. Papias suggests that oral tradition was strong up until his time, so it may have been a while before the written Gospels were regarded more highly than oral tradition. If you want to read Gospel details into Paul, then you could easily say that the early Christians had an understanding of a Gospel-like Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

If Doherty is correct in his hypothesis that the Gospel Jesus was a late creation / fabrication, then the Christian demand that every knee should bow before this orthodox & resurrected Christ has no merit. I and others like me can then move on to more important issues.

Doherty basically says that it is wrong to read Gospel details into Paul, and then asks "Why doesn't Paul know Gospel details?" :huh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

If I understand you correctly you seem to be suggesting that good scholarship rather than apologetics might provide better insight into these questions. That's fine with me.

Not "good scholarship rather than apologetics", just "good scholarship". Why should anyone care what apologists (on either side of the fence) think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

I apologize if I have muddied the discussion with an inappropriate choice of terms.

It's a problem whenever "apologetics" gets brought up. But that's nothing to what happens if you compare mythicism to Creationism.

Mythra · 11-23-2007, 08:22 AM

Since the discussion is about early christian references to the gospels, shouldn't it include the (non-Pauline) epistles?

It seems like there is a conspicuous lack of clear references to gospel events in James, 1&2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation.

I guess I would expect more statements to the effect "remember the words of Jesus concerning this......"

The only exception that comes to mind is in 2 Peter 1: For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

The wording of the Godly pronouncement here appears to be the same as the Transfiguration in Matt 17. (but differs from Mk & Lk)

Are there other clear references to the gospels in these later canonized writings?

andrewcriddle · 11-23-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Irenaeus also referred to Papias, around 180 CE.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P8900_2545577

Quote:

And these things [rather weird stuff] are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (suntetagme/na) by him

Andrew Criddle

xaxxat · 11-24-2007, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But even so the hypotheses are still tested in some way.

How are they tested? Can they be tested and verified by someone who is not emotionally vested in the outcome? Or is just pseudo-science you're proposing?

xaxxat · 11-24-2007, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Back to the schizophrenia situation.

Yep, that's what I find too. As much as I have not wanted it to, it always comes back to that...

judge · 11-24-2007, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But even so the hypotheses are still tested in some way.

How are they tested? Can they be tested and verified by someone who is not emotionally vested in the outcome? Or is just pseudo-science you're proposing?

Testing hypotheses out in a lab with controlled conditions is a very powerful tool to gain knowledge. This kind of thing is known as science.

This is helpful in some areas of our lives, but life is so much more than this. Many things are not ammenable to this particualr kind of inquiry.
We can't take every situation in our lives and go into a lab and test it out.

So we test things in other ways, we give ourselves some credit that we are able to arrive at our own conclusions about things and then we can examine what happens, we can test things out. Do they gel with reality? Do they work?

In short, we look to the results. Are we perfectly free from emotion when doing this? No, and I never suggested we were.

eheffa · 11-24-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

I think this is a good point, and WRT to knowledge of god, I think this is not unexpetced. God is not some fact as far as I can tell like the facts we explore in the natural world. God is endlessly multifacted, and so one person might understand god differently to myself but this would not mean there understanding was not as good as my own.

I understand this line of reasoning as an explanation (excuse?) for why there is or may not be, any empiric evidence of god's existence in the material world. The contradictory response though is that the New Testament (& Old Testament) teaches that God has walked on the earth as an incarnated man -Jesus who taught that his followers could exploit his power to to do marvelous things in his name etc. (Think of faith, mustard seeds & mountains.) He has therefore left the possibility open for verifiable physical claims. (For an irreverent exploration of this topic see: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/ )

The retort I read & hear is that God will not submit to being examined empirically - one must have faith. The alternative explanation is simply that 'God is Imaginary'...as per the above link.

Quote:

So yes, people disagree about god (and then theology too), but this does not mean that evidence for god is not verifiable.

Can you point to a example of an instance in which God's existence is unequivocally verifiable or where the God hypothesis is much more believable than naturalistic explanations?

Quote:

Two areas might be (a) prayer and (a) a deep change that happens within a person that does not seem to be the result of merely human power.

I had an experience maybe three years ago where I prayed (and I was really in need...or so I thought he he) and I thought my prayers were answered, and so I sent more prayers of thanks, only to realise at the 11th hour that my prayers were actually not answered. It was a very difficult situation for me.

So I said "thats it, I am never praying like that again". Now, I could have at that point decided there was no god, after all I prayed and nothing happened, but instead I thought, maybe I have the wrong idea about god, maybe I have no idea how to pray.

Or alternatively...God is imaginary. In this situation you have set up your thinking (as I have many times over the years as well). If I pray & my prayer is answered God delivered me. If I pray & God doesn't answer me or act visibly, he has chosen not to deliver because it was not his will to do so. Heads I win, tails you lose.

In both cases, God's presence activity is affirmed. The circumstances are setup so that over time we gain the impression that God is answering our prayers because we never count a failed prayer against him. Our faith is affirmed. We dare not ask whether God is in fact imaginary as we do not want to offend him with our insolence.

Quote:

So I have made an effort to get rid of god, that is to get rid of all my old ideas about god and experiment with things like prayer. To try things and watch and learn.
The more I continue on this path the surer I become about the truth of the matter, or certain realities.
So in this sense I am verifying things for myself. Also I discus these things with others who have an interest and learn from them and their experiences too.

See above for an possible explanation for the affirmation?

Quote:

As for theology, I have an interest but try to give it less and less place in my thinking. The only theology which I think is really important is for me to see and understand that eternal conscious torture in hell is actually not taught in the bible or by Jesus.
This is such a poisonous idea that it really does need to be refuted.

I understand that Jesus' words, as recorded in the gospels on the topic of hell, are no longer popular & we rarely hear about them from the pulpit or in popular Christian books, but Jesus did speak at length on this topic & it isn't a very comforting picture - See Matt 25 on the sheep & goats for just one example.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I think we go too easy on the God idea, in trying to excuse the lack of empiric data for his existence.

-evan

xaxxat · 11-24-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

How are they tested? Can they be tested and verified by someone who is not emotionally vested in the outcome? Or is just pseudo-science you're proposing?

Testing hypotheses out in a lab with controlled conditions is a very powerful tool to gain knowledge. This kind of thing is known as science.

This is helpful in some areas of our lives, but life is so much more than this. Many things are not ammenable to this particualr kind of inquiry.
We can't take every situation in our lives and go into a lab and test it out.

So we test things in other ways, we give ourselves some credit that we are able to arrive at our own conclusions about things and then we can examine what happens, we can test things out. Do they gel with reality? Do they work?

In short, we look to the results. Are we perfectly free from emotion when doing this? No, and I never suggested we were.

All testing is not done in a lab under controlled conditions. We build our prototypes there but the real testing is done in the real world and things had better work as well there or it's back to the drawing board. Beta testing often whacks our egos pretty hard. I work in motion control. My products had better work as well for a theist as for an atheist, as well in China as Argentina... Warm, fuzzy feelings just won't get it. When the switch s flipped, the shit had better work...

You said "One can know god exists by hypothesis and experiment, the same route one learns using science." Believe me, if that were true it would have already been done a million times. People would love having the certainty that their god was as reliable as electricity...

Now you're trying to weasel out of your statement. Like spin said, its back to the schizophrenia situation, back to a failure of the reality test...

judge · 11-24-2007, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaxxat

Now you're trying to weasel out of your statement. Like spin said, its back to the schizophrenia situation, back to a failure of the reality test...

Well, I don't think I am. From my investigation and many others it passes the reality test very well. The results are good. ... one can investigate these things for oneself.

So i might leave it here as we are going to go round in circles now..I think..all thr best.
Evan, I will get back to your questions. I juts got up and will be going till late tonight, so maybe tomorrow.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-23-2007, 08:22 AM	#73
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	Since the discussion is about early christian references to the gospels, shouldn't it include the (non-Pauline) epistles? It seems like there is a conspicuous lack of clear references to gospel events in James, 1&2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude, and Revelation. I guess I would expect more statements to the effect "remember the words of Jesus concerning this......" The only exception that comes to mind is in 2 Peter 1: For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. The wording of the Godly pronouncement here appears to be the same as the Transfiguration in Matt 17. (but differs from Mk & Lk) Are there other clear references to the gospels in these later canonized writings?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.