Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joan of Bark · 08-22-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Why didn't Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, realize that there could be all kinds of conflicts and arguments over what He was saying and therefore make sure He stated everything as explicitly as possible?

I think he did know that there would be conflict over him:

I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.--Mt. 10:35

Anyone who wants to shake people free from their illusions is going to create conflict.

He also knows that no matter how he expresses himself, the vast majority will misinterpret him.

But of course, YOU interpret him properly.

I don't have a problem with Jesus creating confilict. But there's no excuse for him to speak in parables, knowing all the confusion that would cause. He could have been far clearer, thereby reducing conflict and argument.

Personally, I seriously doubt he said much of what was attributed to him. The Jesus Seminar claimed (if memory serves) that only about 21% of the sayings attributed to Jesus were actually his. Still, approached from the viewpoint of the Gospels-as-inerrant, Jesus definitely contradicts himself.

PhilosopherJay · 08-23-2008, 07:26 PM

Hi No Robots,

Thanks. If the phrase "likely the Saturday Evening Post" was not in the sentence quoted, I would accept the case as settled. Since, apparently the author of the sentence is not sure that it was the Saturday Evening Post, we cannot say that Einstein ever saw or knew about the article. Therefore, we cannot say that the article accurately represented Einstein's views.

The second quote mentioned, about Buddha, Moses and Jesus, is from the same article by G.S. Viereck. Again, with Viereck being a convicted Nazi propagandist, we cannot be sure if Viereck is expressing Einstein's views accurately or if he is substituting what he wishes Einstein said.

The third quote, about purging "all subsequent additions" seems to somewhat contradict the statement that "His personality pulsates in every word." How can his personality pulsate if there have been "subsequent additions"?

In any case, since this quote is unattributed, I don't think we should accept it either as reflecting anything Einstein ever said.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I tend to believe that Einstein's calling the Bible "primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish" does not really fit with the account by Vierick that he said, "No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Einstein confirmed the veracity of the reported quotation:

Some portions of this interview might seem questionable, but this portion of the interview was explicitly confirmed by Einstein. When asked about a clipping from a magazine article (likely the Saturday Evening Post) reporting Einstein's comments on Christianity taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe." See Brian pp. 277 - 278.--from here.

This page has other Einstein quotations on Christ:

What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.
If one purges the Judaism of the Prophets and Christianity as Jesus taught it of all subsequent additions, especially those of the priests, one is left with a teaching which is capable of curing all the social ills of humanity.

No Robots · 08-24-2008, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

If the phrase "likely the Saturday Evening Post" was not in the sentence quoted, I would accept the case as settled. Since, apparently the author of the sentence is not sure that it was the Saturday Evening Post, we cannot say that Einstein ever saw or knew about the article. Therefore, we cannot say that the article accurately represented Einstein's views.

Please consult the book to which I linked earlier:

Brian, Denis, Einstein — A Life (or via: amazon.co.uk) (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996), p. 277-278. This passage provides the questions asked by Viereck and Einstein's confirmation of the accuracy of the reported answers.

Quote:

The second quote mentioned, about Buddha, Moses and Jesus, is from the same article by G.S. Viereck. Again, with Viereck being a convicted Nazi propagandist, we cannot be sure if Viereck is expressing Einstein's views
accurately or if he is substituting what he wishes Einstein said.

This quotation is in Albert Einstein, The Human Side by Albert Einstein, Helen Dukas, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 70. Einstein originally made the statement in 1937, long before the Viereck interview.

Quote:

The third quote, about purging "all subsequent additions" seems to somewhat contradict the statement that "His personality pulsates in every word." How can his personality pulsate if there have been "subsequent additions"?

In any case, since this quote is unattributed, I don't think we should accept it either as reflecting anything Einstein ever said.

The third quotation is from The World as I See It by Albert Einstein, p. 127.

Solo · 08-25-2008, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

...there's no excuse for him to speak in parables

...or walking on water, for that matter.

Jiri

No Robots · 08-25-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This quotation is in Albert Einstein, The Human Side by Albert Einstein, Helen Dukas, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 70. Einstein originally made the statement in 1937, long before the Viereck interview.

Correction--This should read: Einstein originally made the statement in 1937, long after the Viereck interview.

bacht · 08-25-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

What is not possible imo is that a supernatural being like the one described in the Gospels actually walked the earth without anyone noticing

Sorry, I tried to believe the traditional interpretation of these stories, but I can't

Good lord, I hope you don't think that's what I am proposing?! No, no, no. I'm a thorough-going naturalist. And I don't think Gerhardsson is saying anything at all about supernaturalism. He seems to me to be a pretty thorough-going naturalist, or at least he is content to discuss Christ and the Gospels only within a naturalistic framework. But naturalism doesn't mean fantasizing about the origin of the Gospels: it means working within the framework of our knowledge about their cultural context.

Sorry NR I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I agree that supernaturalism and the paranormal deserve minimal attention from scientific historians.

“The Origins of the Gospel Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk)” gives an accessible review of the debate regarding the extent to which the New Testament evangelists enable us to hear the voice of Jesus. [Amazon.com]

Well, I'm using the MJ toolkit these days, I don't accept that there was a "real" Jesus teaching or healing or whatever some decades before the Revolt. I still think that the written material we have is datable to the first and second centuries (sorry Mountain Man), but its interpretation is very much up for grabs.

Joan of Bark · 08-25-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

...there's no excuse for him to speak in parables

...or walking on water, for that matter.

Jiri

Huh?

storytime · 08-26-2008, 04:42 PM

"...there's no excuse for him to speak in parables."

Maybe there is. Why did Jesus speak in parables to the multitude and plainly to his disciples? Because, deceit served a purpose. Deceit provided a protective barrier because predistination played its part in the framework of "who's who" in Israel.

If we look at the Kingdom of God as belonging to only the priests, then others in Israel could not claim that same inheritance. And, the priesthood was given to some but not all, a predistined inheritance from the beginning. So speaking parables would have been a way to keep out the imposters, those who thought they had right to the kingdom of god as priests. Just let them imagine a heavenly kingdom way up in the sky to keep them busy and out of the real kingdom business on earth run by its authorized priests of whom it had been given from the beginning of Israel.

No Robots · 08-26-2008, 07:40 PM

It is very difficult for idealists, as Christ was, to communicate ideas to the masses, preoccupied as they are with material existence. As Hyman Gerson Elenow puts it:

Like other treasures, then, ideals cannot be gotten nor held without a certain cost. The idealist must be ready to pay the price of his ideals, and usually it means facing the opposition and misunderstanding of his fellowmen. There is hardly an idealist who has not been forced to endure the antagonism of the world, and particularly the unhappiness of being misunderstood by it. Had the world understood its idealists, and had it sought to put into effect their teachings and visions, it would be different than it is. But the world has hardly ever really grasped what its ideal teachers meant to convey and to accomplish. This has formed the tragedy of idealists. Sooner or later it is the fate of every idealist to realize the distance between himself and the world, the difficulty of making himself understood, and the remote chance of his words and visions finding fulfillment. --Hyman Gerson Elenow / A Jewish view of Jesus, p. 85.

Christ uses parables, or more properly, meshalim, as the most effective means of communicating his ideals. He knew full well, though, that most of his hearers would fail to grasp his meaning, so he lives in hope of reaching at least some few. Fortunately, among all the dross written about Christ, there are some gold nuggets that really can help us attain to his thought. Elenow's book, for example, is a great place to start.

PhilosopherJay · 08-26-2008, 09:50 PM

Hi No Robots,
According to wikipedia, the quote is from the Viereck interview::

Quote:

The following comes from "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17. The questions are posed by Viereck; the reply to each is by Einstein. Since the interview was conducted in Berlin and both Viereck and Einstein had German as their mother tongue, the interview was likely conducted in German and then translated into English by Viereck.

Some portions of this interview might seem questionable, but this portion of the interview was explicitly confirmed by Einstein. When asked about a clipping from a magazine article (likely the Saturday Evening Post) reporting Einstein's comments on Christianity taken down by Viereck, Einstein carefully read the clipping and replied, "That is what I believe."[6]

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."

"Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets."

"No man," Einstein replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he." On Buddha, Moses, and Jesus

Our time is distinguishedby wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind.

What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living

It is possible that the editors of "The Human Side" are quoting from the Vierick article without realising it. If this is the case than we cannot accept it as support for the veracity of the Vierick article. If Vierick made up the quotes in the article, then we would expect two quotes from the article to be similar.

On the other hand, if the authors are quoting from another writing by Einstein from 1937, it would be amazing that both Vierick and Einstein would translate a complicated sentence like this originally made in German into English exactly the same way, word for word. That would suggest that somehow the 1930 article ended up in the 1937 writing, but was not something said or written by Einstein in 1937.

I will get the Brian book as soon as I get a chance. Thanks.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This quotation is in Albert Einstein, The Human Side by Albert Einstein, Helen Dukas, Banesh Hoffmann, p. 70. Einstein originally made the statement in 1937, long before the Viereck interview.

Correction--This should read: Einstein originally made the statement in 1937, long after the Viereck interview.

08-26-2008, 07:40 PM	#59
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	It is very difficult for idealists, as Christ was, to communicate ideas to the masses, preoccupied as they are with material existence. As Hyman Gerson Elenow puts it: Like other treasures, then, ideals cannot be gotten nor held without a certain cost. The idealist must be ready to pay the price of his ideals, and usually it means facing the opposition and misunderstanding of his fellowmen. There is hardly an idealist who has not been forced to endure the antagonism of the world, and particularly the unhappiness of being misunderstood by it. Had the world understood its idealists, and had it sought to put into effect their teachings and visions, it would be different than it is. But the world has hardly ever really grasped what its ideal teachers meant to convey and to accomplish. This has formed the tragedy of idealists. Sooner or later it is the fate of every idealist to realize the distance between himself and the world, the difficulty of making himself understood, and the remote chance of his words and visions finding fulfillment. --Hyman Gerson Elenow / A Jewish view of Jesus, p. 85. Christ uses parables, or more properly, meshalim, as the most effective means of communicating his ideals. He knew full well, though, that most of his hearers would fail to grasp his meaning, so he lives in hope of reaching at least some few. Fortunately, among all the dross written about Christ, there are some gold nuggets that really can help us attain to his thought. Elenow's book, for example, is a great place to start.

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

08-26-2008, 04:42 PM	#58
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	"...there's no excuse for him to speak in parables." Maybe there is. Why did Jesus speak in parables to the multitude and plainly to his disciples? Because, deceit served a purpose. Deceit provided a protective barrier because predistination played its part in the framework of "who's who" in Israel. If we look at the Kingdom of God as belonging to only the priests, then others in Israel could not claim that same inheritance. And, the priesthood was given to some but not all, a predistined inheritance from the beginning. So speaking parables would have been a way to keep out the imposters, those who thought they had right to the kingdom of god as priests. Just let them imagine a heavenly kingdom way up in the sky to keep them busy and out of the real kingdom business on earth run by its authorized priests of whom it had been given from the beginning of Israel.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.