Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 10-03-2006, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Actually they did.

Yes, they had an 8 day "week" or period for the market day. However, they also had a 7 day week. It was not of roman origin perhaps but it did enter roman culture before christianity.

The names of the days of the week is quite telling in that respect. It is not "day of Mary" and "day of Jesus" and "day of John" etc... They are "day of Mars", "day of Jupiter", "day of Sun" etc.

The 7 day week was not immediate though. However, it is a result of a 24 hour day (12 hours daytime and 12 hours night time, each hour was not fixed length, in winter the night hours was long and the day hours short in the northern parts of the roman empire, in the summer time it was long day hours and short night hours). Each hour was named for one of the 7 objects in the sky. Starting with Saturn on the first hour and with 7 hour cycle, you had 3 hours left over so that halfway into the fourth cycle the first hour of next day came so that the 1st hour of the following day was 4 hour into into the cycle.

Start with the following sequence: (this sequence was for astrological reasons and was
in ancient times in the rank as how they perceived the objects were removed from earth
with Saturn furher away and Moon nearest).

Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon,

The 1st hour of a day was Saturn so it was "day of saturn" or saturday as it is called in english. The next hour was the hour or jupiter and the 7th hour was on saturday was the hour of the moon and then on the 8th hour it was the hour of saturn again. Same thing in the 15th hour and the 22nd hour. The 23rd hour was the hour of Jupiter again and the 24th
hour was the hour of Mars and then the 1st hour of the following day was the hour of the sun so it became the "day of the sun" or sunday as we call it in english. You quicly see that if you put them on a wheel you simply skip 2 and then find the next day so the sequence of the days in the week became:

Saturn, Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus.

or

Saturday, sunday, monday, tuesday (god of war, equivalent to Mars), wednesday (the messanger wotan or odin same as Mercury), thursday (thor's day god of lightning same as Jupiter), friday (Freia goddess of fertility and beauty same as Venus).

The names tuesday, wednesday, thursday and friday are of course of germanic origin while english has kept the latin day of saturn for saturday while the equivalent name for saturday in norwegian is lørdag which comes from old norse "laugrdagr" or bathing day, it was the day of the week when they took a bath! Germans call wednesday for "mitwoch" or "the day that is in the middle of the week" but other than that they have essentially kept the same.

Some languages have thursday and friday switched in the scheme above as such it is possible that Jupiter and Venus should have swapped places according to that astrological chart I mentioned, I forgot which is which and which country follow it and which has it switched.

None of this has anything at all to do with christianity.

Alf

It's possible that other ancient cultures became aware of and referred to the Mesopotamian seven-day week. I haven't seen any evidence that any other culture, ancient or modern, invented the seven-day week independently, nor have I seen any evidence that weeks of other lengths as used by other cultures (for example, the Roman eight-day week) were displaced from general usage by the seven-day week without religion playing a part. Pre-Christian Romans may have known of and referred to the seven-day week, but that's not the same as saying that they adopted it in place of their own eight-day week.

J-D · 10-03-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

However, I don't have to do that. There are things in the bible that is unhistorical and which is not authentic Jesus - things that are not miraculous.

For example, Jesus tells his disciples some stories. The point is that the form of the story is a form that was unknown at the time that Jesus supposedly lived but a form that became popular around late 1st century and early 2nd century. Either then Jesus was divine and knew about this form before it became known among humans and told his disciples a story in a form where they would just say "Huh? what are you talking about????" OR it is a gospel writer writing in late 1st century or early 2nd century who put this story into Jesus' mouth. Which explanation do you think makes most sense?

This has absolutely ZIP to do with miracles. The form of the story reveal that it is not authentic.

Can we have more information please?

J-D · 10-03-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

I'm not denying incidents of charlatanism, but religion is too big and widespread a phenomenon, and too obviously sincerely experienced and undergone by its leading practitioners, to put too big a burden on charlatanism as a cause.

As I see it, the burden of proof is on those who wish to suggest that the majority of religious people who claim to have had enlightenment experiences or communications with discarnate intelligence haven't actually had what seems to them like enlightenment experiences or communication with discarnate intelligence.

There's a temptation amongst rationalists to believe religion is just silliness, or wooly philosophy, or vague daydreaming, or vague visions, or hallucinations, or strong emotions about ideas, or social bonding. Sure, sometimes these things happen - more so obviously for the average religious person - but for the most part there's an element of religious experience that's it's own beast, subjectively strong and real-seeming, different altogether from hallucination or illusion, that can happen to otherwise normal, intelligent people, that's the real motivating factor in religious genius.

That is to say, when it comes down to looking at the part psychological motivating factors play in the growth of religions, that's how you've got to figure it works in the case of religious geniuses or founders - it's not (in a reflection of the rationalist's "tin ear" for religious experience), that these experiences of communication with gods are vague, wooly, dreamy or whatever. They seem very real to those who have them, and the conviction arising from that feeling of reality is a strong motivating factor for those who have them, and a strong cause of people following them.

(Of course whether those experiences are valid is a different issue! But as a motivating force for religion, I think we have to first of all, play along with what founding religious people - the great prophets, charismatics, mystics - themselves say, as representing their experience and motivations, and only then, if it doesn't jibe with facts somewhere, check whether they are charlatans, or fooling themselves, etc.)

I'm not sure you follow me. Perhaps I need to make myself clearer.

As I understood you, you suggested not only that such experiences occur (which I don't dispute) and not only that founders of religions have them (which may well be true) but also that people who claim to have them but don't succeed in attracting a religious following can be assumed, on that basis, to be frauds.

J-D · 10-03-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

There are a couple of clarifications I ought to provide to the term "original". You are right to point out that these principles are alluded to in the Tanakh. However, this is where the claim that Jesus made to be the fulfillment, not the contradiction, of the Law and Prophets comes in. The older Jewish Scriptures were focused on being exhaustive (or nearly so) laws in specific situations. This is why Leviticus, etc. is so difficult to wade through! Jesus, rather than contradicting these laws, translated their spirit into general principles to guide all behavior. This is why he never stated, "Do this;" instead, he would advocate a certain behavior, and then explain why it was good.

Thus, in the sense of being entirely and completely without precedent, Jesus was not original. However, any good moral theorist will not be entirely original in this strict sense; they will develop upon ideas presented earlier and then explore them further, usually tweaking them to reflect increased understanding. Jesus' originality lay in the transition of the Jewish moral system into a universal moral system, built on principles instead of detailed instructions. This shift not only from the specific to the general, but also from the cultural to the universal, is unique to ancient Palestine.

Firstly, I don't believe that this shift from the specific to the general and from the cultural to the universal was unique to ancient Palestine. What about Buddhism, or Mohism? Secondly, in ancient Palestine I don't believe it was original with Jesus. What about Hillel?

(Incidentally, according to my source, rejection by Jewish sages of 'an eye for an eye' as a literal prescription predated Jesus.)

TrueMyth · 10-03-2006, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alf

Show me a description of "historical Jesus" that is NOT pure speculation and you might have a case.

The following is a synopsis of the HJ found by the JS, as described by Mark Allan Powell in his book Jesus as a Figure in History (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, KY, 1998, p. 72)

Quote:

According to work published so far, the Jesus that the Seminar envisions began as a disciple of John the Baptist, but he eventually rejected both the ascetic life that his mentor advocated and the apocalyptic message of a coming judgment that was supposed to motivate people to repent and adopt such a lifestyle. Instead, Jesus said the kingdom of God was already a relaity, here and now, and he made a deliberate practice of eating and drinking in what was considered a profane style to celebrate this. An iconoclastic poet, he fraternized shamelessly wih social outcasts and caricatured the empty values on which human behavior can be based. Favorite targets for his wit included reliance on wealth, uncritical respect for blood relatives, and the pomposity of religion. For Jesus, temples, priests, and all other accoutrements of religion were unnecessary, as were, ultimately, earthly possessions and family.
Jesus had a knack for telling parables and for coining paradoxical aphorisms that challenged usual ways of thinking. He also recalled and used secular proverbs but probably did not quote the scriptures. He became a traveling sage who wandered from village to village offering his eccentric brand of teaching to people in exchange for handouts. He did not call on people to repent or fast or obseve teh sabbah, nor did he make any theological statements about God. His message, if one can call it htat, was primarily a challenge to social convention. He was a social critic, but not one who had any program or prescription for solving the world's ills. He ridiculed those who claimed to have answers and did not claim to have any answers himself. Otherwise, he was reticent and unassuming, neither enlisting followers nor initiating debate. He did no speak of himself at all, nor did he have any particular vision of the future.
He attracted attention all the same. Apparently, dozens of people began to follow him about. They (and others) would ply him with questions, to which he would never give direct answers. They also maintained that he was able to exorcize demons and cure diseases. Jesus went along wiht this, effecting some psychosomatic cures and accepting this as demonstrative that, indeed, life here and now can be all that it ought to be. Eventually, he made his way to Jerusalem, where he instigated some kind of incident in the temple area during a festival. He was arrested and quickly executed without a trial.

This of course is not necessarily the only Jesus that could be historically said to have existed. I am critical of the Seminar's assumptions, but I believe that within those assumptions, the JS provides us with an admirable portrait of a historical Jesus about whom we can say with very good authority that he did exist. What we cannot do, even within their assumptions, is say, "This is definitely the Jesus." So, Alf: here is a historical Jesus which is quite seemingly not based on pure speculation. What is your response?

TrueMyth · 10-03-2006, 11:26 PM

It will probably be helpful, given the breadth and scope of the discussion so far, to bring an overall picture together, at least as I perceive it.

1. Jesus, the man, actually existed.
1a. This fact is historically provable. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Origen, and others attest to his existence.
1b. Josephus' references in particular have come under scrutiny, but there are at least parts of them which are commonly accepted as authentic.

2. From these historical records, we can deduce the following bare facts about the Historical Jesus:
2a. He was the brother of James
2b. He was considered "a wise man" and a "doer of wonders"
2c. He drew a crowd of followers to him at least partly as the result of his teachings
2d. Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius, most likely for inciting the people
2e. Christians are named after Jesus, based on the title they gave him: the Christ
2f. (This is a deduction from 2c and 2e) Christians, at least in the beginning, follow the teachings of Jesus as they perceive them.

3. The authenticity of the Bible in recording the actual sayings of Jesus is in question. However, very few scholars reject it entirely. Even the Jesus Seminar finds about 18% of the sayings of Jesus in the Bible to be "authentic" or "nearly authentic"
3a. The Jesus Seminar, while a marvel of scholarship, suffers from presuppositions which limit the total efficacy of its conclusions to a certain audience. Among these presuppositions are a committment to a naturalistic worldview and the controversial criterion of dissimilarity.
3b. In all, it can be said about the JS that its scholarship is remarkable, and its project is ambitious, but its most useful contribution has not been to find the definite historical Jesus. Rather, it has uncovered a historical Jesus which can be said to be almost certain to be authentic of what was there, but not of what was not. Thus, it seems as if the work of the JS must be a starting point, but cannot be an ending point.

4. What statements we can attribute to Jesus as authentic with a relative degree of certainty, indicate that he was iconoclastic, original in his morality, gave special attention to the poor, and critical of worldly power.
4a. Jesus' moral originality did not stem from his complete and utter separation from (then) past or present morality; rather, it shifted the focus from exhaustive laws to general principles, deemphasized the role of specific culture, and brought out to the forefront themes which were then considered secondary, tertiary, etc. In a few very rare cases, he offered an entirely novel approach.

5. The search for the Historical Jesus is useful and good.
5a. However, we must be careful from the outset (both Christians, atheists, and in between) to at least be aware of what the presuppositions of our historical inquiry will a priori either include or exclude.
5b. Much of the search for the HJ has resulted in a mirror image of the searcher; reflecting the need for awareness of bias in scholarship.
5c. The HJ uncovered so far, as free of bias as may be, is neither especially conducive for or against the Jesus of the Gospels
5d. The Jesus of the Gospels may or may not be identical to the Historical Jesus, it is impossible to determine at this point.

This is the state of the discussion as I see it. As a final note, it may be the case that we have reached the end of objective HJ inquiry, and must proceed from this point further with scientifically rigorous investigations within particular worldviews and assumptions. However, I do not believe that the assertions stated above about the historical Jesus can be denied, by persons of any ideology, without encountering serious difficulties.

lpetrich · 10-03-2006, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

From the introduction to The Five Gospels: "The contemporary religious controversy turns on whether the world view reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith . . . . the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope" (New York:Macmillan, 1993; p. 2)
And again...
"Strauss [the author of The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined] distinguished what he called the ‘mythical’ (defined by him as anything legendary or supernatural) in the Gospels from the historical . . . . The choice Strauss posed in his assessment of the Gospels was between the supernatural Jesus––the Christ of faith––and the historical Jesus" (p. 3)
Strauss' is the model the Jesus Seminar unabashedly adopts from the beginning. They call this distinction-- between a Jesus by definition supernatural and one by definition natural-- "the first pillar of scholarly wisdom" (p. 3)
Thus, it seems to me quite clear that the Jesus Seminar, both in theory and in practice, presupposes a historical Jesus which is by definition non-supernatural. In this way, all references to miracles are expunged.

I will concede that those are not the best arguments against believing in miracles, though Strauss might have had some better ones that were not quoted here. Arguments like philosopher David Hume's arguments from 250 years ago like how reported miracles had become much rarer in his day than in previous centuries, arguments that are even stronger today. And arguments like why believe in one religion's miracles but not in another religion's miracles? Why believe that Jesus Christ had cured some people with salivary therapy and not that Vespasian had also done so? Suetonius and Tacitus claimed that he did, and these two historians are often used as sources.

Quote:

Another problem with the Jesus Seminar's presuppositions is what is called the criterion of dissimilarity in wider scholarship; they refer to it as a committment to "distinctive discourse" (p. 30) in Jesus' sayings. ...

It's a way of looking for what was original in the things that Jesus Christ had said. It's always possible that JC had said lots of unoriginal things; I'm not sure if the Jesus Seminar was clear about that.

Quote:

Regarding prophecy, this is the JS's method: When Jesus predicts his death or the destruction of Jerusalem, and we know that the event actually came about, then it must have been added by later Christians. Regarding prophecies made by other religious traditions, the question is not one of my personal opinions.

Refusing to think about other religions' claims of prophecy fulfillments is a bad argument. Do you believe that they are genuine or do you believe that they are all after-the-fact? BTW, here's another one, from Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, Augustus, 94:2-3:

Quote:

In ancient days, when a part of the wall of Velitrae had been struck by lightning, the prediction was made that a citizen of that town would one day rule the world. Through their confidence in this the people of Velitrae had at once made war on the Roman people and fought with them many times after that almost to their utter destruction; but at last long afterward the event proved that the omen had foretold the rule of Augustus.

According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury, since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family.

TrueMyth, do you believe that these are all genuine prophecies fulfilled by Augustus, or do you believe that these are all after-the fact?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

When Josephus predicted that Vespasian would be emperor, and then he became emperor, this is not automatically rejected as authentic.

Given Vespasian's career at the time, this seems much like predicting which notable US politicians are likely to become US President. What would have been really remarkable is predicting his becoming Emperor well before he was born.

Quote:

The only reason this is assumed for Jesus is b/c of the use put to these prophecies by later Christians, namely to prove Jesus' divinity. This no longer seems like an objective use of this principle.

But as I pointed out earlier, why believe in prophecies related to Jesus Christ and not those related to Augustus, Oedipus, Perseus, Romulus, Zeus, Krishna, or the Buddha?

Alf · 10-04-2006, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

Fine. I understand your point. However, I am not really referencing miracles per se being ruled out. I am not even criticizing the findings of the JS on objective grounds. My point is merely that by assuming the naturalistic worldview, they limit their findings-- in so far as they are influenced by this assumption-- to those who accept this worldview. Within the choir, so to speak, their preaching is wonderful and edificatory. Outside, the conclusions as a whole cannot be rejected out of hand, but the specific parts which are affected by non-shared assumptions can be rejected on those grounds.

Ok. Now, if you can demonstrate a miracle, that would greatly help your case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

I'm not sure why you're mixing miracles and storytelling; the two never coincide in the Bible (Jesus doesn't sit down and tell stories about his miracles). Which story form are you talking about, though? Parables?

I am not mixing them. I am simply saying that we can identify non-miraculous parts of the gospels that are not authentic. We may disagree which parts this is but we appear to both agree that such parts exist. IOW we do NOT have to refer to miracles in order to conclude that there are inauthentic portions of the gospels. The miracles are in this respect irrelevant.

Also, the term "parable" is used somewhat confusing by most christians. Traditionally Jews had one form of story telling which is called midrash. You can find examples of midrash in the gospels and they are possibly authentic "parables" told by jews around that time and as such could have been authentic Jesus parables. However, you can also find other orms such as allegories. This is a form of "parable" that did not exist at that time. It was a story form that became known late 1st century and early 2nd century. Any parable of Jesus in the form of allegory is very unlikely authentic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

Without launching into a defense of miracles, then I would simply state that I agree with you that fundies ignore their own presuppositions. That's one of the nice things about not being a fundy: being aware of the limitations of one's own presuppositions. However, suffice it to say that the existence of miracles is not one of my presuppositions; it is a conclusion reached via rational thought which is, admittedly, based on other more basic presuppositions, as is rational thought of all ideologies.

I would also reach such a conclusion if I could see a demonstration that miracles exist. Of course, this is in a way self-defeating. The moment you can demonstrate a miracle we can find out how it works and what laws of nature it follows etc and it would be deemed a natural rather than miraculous event. As such we can categorically state that miracles never happen - if they happen they are natural rather than supernatural. Stating that something IS a genuine miracle is essentially equivalent to stating that "I know everything about nature and I know all laws of science that we ever will discover and I know that this event cannot ever be explained in terms of past, present or future science". IOW, you would have to be omniscient and foretell the future in order to be able to identify a miracle. Consequently, we can assert that miracles never happens. Period. Show me a miracle and I will show you a natural event that we simply perhaps do not know exacty how works yet. Even worse, many people claim miracles even though it is events that we CAN explain today already using the science we know today and scientists and magician performers can duplicate the events such as spoon bending etc. Still, there are people who claim it is miracles and believe in the charlatans who claim them to be supernatural events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

The reason why Matt. 15:26 and Mark 7:27 is not in my list is b/c that list was of the 5 passages deemed the most authentic by the JS. Neither of these passages were in that list. In fact, both were listed as black, which means that is is almost certainly inauthentic. So can you please provide some proof for your assertion that it is most likely authentically from Jesus?
What proof you have provided seems very faulty. You state that it is in style with his general attitude. But what proof is there of his general attidue? 1) His sayings? These two passages are the only ones which can be interpreted as bigoted without any violence being done to the text, and they are both deemed inauthentic. If you believe there are others and believe they are authentic, please provide them for me with proof. To use his general attitude as proof is to beg the question. 2) His actions? Fraternization with mostly one's own circle, especially in a segregated society such as existed in ancient Palestine, does not seem to necessitate racism. For example, my growing up in mostly white suburbia does not guarantee that I will be discriminatory. I cannot find an action of Jesus which is considered authentic that obviously evidences his bigotry. As far as his big-city aversion, I would point out that this could be either evidence of his desire to avoid intelligent people (assuming that the big city = intelligent people), or evidence of his desire to shun the traditional trappings of religion and society, and commune with the disadvantaged and the outcast. To determine which it is better evidence of, we must look at what we know of his actions and sayings that is definitely authentic. And what do we find? Luke 6:20 (and Matthew 5:3): "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." Obviously, this is not an end-all proof, but it lends some definite credence to the fact that Jesus preferred the poor and disadvantaged not b/c they were gullible, but b/c they were iconoclastic.

I deem them as likely authentic because no believer would ever cook up such a story about Jesus if it wasn't based in some truth. This hero figure were supposedly an icon, someone they looked up to. What reason should they have to make up such a story about their hero?

Of course, it is possible that Jesus did not exist at all but it is very likely that the story has some basis in a true story - some early jewish christian met a canaanite woman and the events happened as told. Whether it was actually genuinely Jesus or some now forgotten early christian is in this respect irrelevant.

In contrast I found it fishy that people deem them inauthentic on the basis that they clashes with their hero image of Jesus. That sounds like ciruclar reasoning and is far more suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

Again, it seem that you are reading much more than is possible into an ancient person's motives. You are assuming that he chooses what to preach based on the crowd, and not choosing his crowd based on his preaching. What basis do you have for the one over the other? I am not necessarily stating that I believe it is the other way around; my contention is that neither of us have sufficient evidence to infer motives of people we meet every day, let alone for an ancient Jew.

Well, he did choose his crowd alright. If we are to believe the gospels, he stayed away from the larger cities and preached to peasants and uneducated folks. I think we can assume that he was himself not a heavily educated person. He was probably more educated than the people around him but that didn't take much as they had nil.

I don't think he was illiterate but he certainly didn't left much in the form of writings.

The examples of "logic" presented in the gospels also indicate that logic and philosophy wasn't exactly his strongest points. His ethics also seem rather simplistic and not well thought out. Again, the "turn the other cheek" may sound nice but if taken literally it is just plain stupid. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be taken literally and as such it is just a weak form of "Can't we all just get along?" kinda statement. It sounds nice but it doesn't really help much if people have a genuine conflict in front of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

I'll let my earlier clarification stand of what I mean by "original" in a reply to J-D as a response to this.

The problem is then that the originality falls apart. The universality most likely comes as a result of Paul's preaching to gentiles etc and was not from the jewish cultural background. Again, this has its root from hellenized thinking which grew more universal. (This is one of the key differences between hellenic culture and greek culture so the two should not be confused). Paul, being a hellenized jew, sounds more like the true originator of this rather than an obscure rabbi from the rural countryside of palestine.

Christianity has many roots. It is in part from jewish culture. The gospels, the OT etc is a testament to that. However, it is also in large part from greek philosophy and thinking or rather hellenistic philosophy and thinking and even pagan rituals - such as the ritual of dragging a tree into your living room which people do today around christmas time.

Christanity is a complex mix of all these roots - some are officially accepted by the church and some are roots they wish they could forget but they are all there. I think even the pope admitted as much in the recent speech which many muslims complained about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

However, I am confused about your statement that "An eye for an eye" is STILL the dominant moral philosophy, as evidenced by the news. If "love your enemies" was semi-common knowledge at the time, what was "an eye for an eye"? Are the two not mutually exclusive? I'm confused; please help me understand. The best I can discern is that you mean that an eye for an eye was and still is the dominant moral philosophy, but there was a strong counter-strain which advocated loving one's enemies. Is this correct?

It is STILL the dominant moral philosophy. If a palestinian kid throw a rock at a jewish soldier. The jewish soldiers kill him and then go to his father and demolish his father's house.

You hit me, I hit you back.

Why do you think this conflict appear to be going and going and never end? It is because BOTH sides live by the principle "an eye for an eye".

And yes, even at ancient times around Jesus' alleged lifetime, did they also know that there were alternatives but although everybody know that there are alternatives they have never let those alternatives dominate their way of thinking. peaceful resistance and non-violence are concepts that people in that area appear to not know about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

Your application of the "turn the other cheek" principle seems to me to be a strawman. The principle is not that when something important to you is violated, you should go one up on the violator by giving them something else as well. The principle is that you should not seek retribution for wrongs done to you out of hate.

That is your interpretation. The literal reading says "to turn the other cheek". If a person steal your shirt, give him your pants as well!

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

Another aspect of the principle is that worldly things are worthless when compared with your soul. These principles only become difficult in application when we take them in isolation with the rest of Jesus' words. Taken as a whole, the idea of giving one's daughter to your wife's rapist is reprehensible.

Again, that is an interpretation. It might be a correct interpretation but it is an interpretation and not the only one.

Also, you can read this in lieu of the theory that Jesus was a doomsday prophet. He believed that the end of the world was just around the corner, so why bother to seek revenge? Just turn the other cheek! The father in heaven will reward you provided you do not seek the material world.

It doesn't have to be deeper than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

You acknowledge in one point that this is indicative of a deeper principle, but you seem to deride it as washed-out and meaningless. You prefer to favor specific rules for specific situations. I must admit, I am baffled by this. I find general principles, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Do to others what you would have them do to you" to be the most excellent of all moral approaches.

I can agree, and the golden rule you allude to was known by the east since ancient times. It is also alluded to in the OT and is as such an ancient principle which was generally known by many people around that time. As such it was hardly original.

As I said, where he was good he wasn't original. Where he was original he wasn't good.

The problem with a "turn the other cheek" however, is that as soon as you say "it is not supposed to be taken literally" you are simply left with a big question mark - what DOES it mean then? Well, err... if someone hit you, you are not supposed to literally turn the other cheek to them, you do have the right to defend yourself and perhaps even hit them back so you can get away from them. Oh, so then it doesn't really mean anything at all. Oh, no, it means you should not seek revenge from those who do things to you out of hate, hate grows hate and can only escalate that way. Uh, well, why not simply say that then instead of saying "turn the other cheek"?

See where this goes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

As long as one keeps them constantly in mind and asks them of all moral actions one undertakes, how are they useless? I find them much more freeing than a set of exhaustive rules (which I believe to be impossible).

I agree with you there. Moral principles is more useful than any attempt of exhaustive list of dos and don'ts. Even in law they realize as much. Law texts today are usually followed with explanations etc by the law makers so that when a court is to settle a matter they not only have the law text but they also have those explanations and reasoning and earlier similar cases etc to guide them. Thus, the law text itself is not - and is not intended to be - exhaustive.

Even realizing that whatever principle you make there are always the possibllity that a situation occur where that principle does not necessarily apply - simply because you never thought about that situation when you made that principle. Thus, you adjust the principle as you go but try to keep some key points fixed amid all the floating. It is in this respect that the golden rule is important as it can be seen as such a fixed point. I.e. when you are to examine how well a given moral principle is or ot, you can ask yourself how would you feel if that principle was used against you by someone else? If you wouldn't like that very much then that moral principle is probably not very good. This is why I think for example that gay marriage should not be prohibited. I am myself not gay and if gay were in majority I would not like it if they prohibited mixed marriages, consequently I do not want to prohibit gay marriages. Thus, the golden rule can be used as arbitor to determine how well other rules are. The fact that golden rule is recognized universally across religions is also a testament to its validity.

However, it is those general principles that determines how you should act in specific situations. Thus, if you make a principle P and if I find a situation S where that principle if applied appear absurd then it is very likely that the principle P wasn't very well thought out. The "turn the other cheek" is such a principle. If someone rape my wife and if I then applied the princple "turn the other cheek", should I then offer my daughter as well? Presumably not, therefore the principle "turn the other cheek" appear silly and meaningless.

When showing a principle to be valid it makes no sense to show success stories in specifics. However, when showing a principle to be invalid it is enough to show specific situations where it is not successful. Thus, it makes perfect sense to show specific examples rather than just keeping them all lofty and general when assessing their usefulness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

Again, I will require proof of this assertion.

Again, the gospels were written by believers - the fans. They would not write anything that put Jesus in a bad light. Inded, if he did something that would otherwise be considered bad, and they were fairly certain he did it, they would say he did it and try to explain why in this case this was a good thing.

Consequently, I am more inclined to believe they left out bad things and perhaps inserted good things about Jesus than the other way around. They would never insert bad things about him and would very likely never omit good things about him.

So, when you in the gospels read that he did not come to bring peace but to bring son against father etc it is possibly authentic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

I'm glad you allow for a previous paragraph, b/c that is exactly what the TF is in Book 18, which precedes the James reference in Book 20. Yes, the TF has many difficulties with it, but the vast majority of scholars do not reject the passage entirely, but reject the pro-Christ editorializing done by later Christians. This is a reconstruction of what most scholars think about the TF:

The CAPITAL LETTERS are what are considered later additions. By referencing Christians to Jesus, Josephus is acknowledging that he had the title of "Christ", at least among his followers. Thus, when he references Jesus in the James passage, there is a prior mention of Jesus as known as the Christ, and it is reasonable to think that the James passage is not an addition. To further corroborate the James passage, Origen quotes it in full later on.

There are several problems with the TF. Yes, one reconstruction is as you allude to. There is one problem though, the parts added in are exactly those parts that identify the passage to be about Jesus - the gospel Jesus that is. It is also many people who read the paragraph before TF and after and seem to find a certain flow and as such the TF appear to be stuck in and break that flow. Especially the paragraph after TF appear to make no sense with TF included, as it say something about "after all these disasters" or some such. TF does not describe any disaster, does it?

Also, certainly, if the James reference "the so-called Christ" should make sense and TF is that previous paragraph describing this "christ" then TF should also include a "so-called christ" reference. I.e. TF should have read something like:

Now there was about this time Jesus called Christ by some, a wise man....

Of course, you can argue that this christian person removed that reference and replaced it with the "if it was lawful to call him a man" etc. but does it really make sense that a christian writer should remove "called Christ by some" or some such. He would possibly remove "called" and "by some" but he would not remove the explicite reference to "Christ". Thus, I find that theory rather fishy.

Alf

Alf · 10-04-2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TrueMyth

The following is a synopsis of the HJ found by the JS, as described by Mark Allan Powell in his book Jesus as a Figure in History (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, KY, 1998, p. 72)

This of course is not necessarily the only Jesus that could be historically said to have existed. I am critical of the Seminar's assumptions, but I believe that within those assumptions, the JS provides us with an admirable portrait of a historical Jesus about whom we can say with very good authority that he did exist. What we cannot do, even within their assumptions, is say, "This is definitely the Jesus." So, Alf: here is a historical Jesus which is quite seemingly not based on pure speculation. What is your response?

The problem is that there is nil evidence for any of this. As such it is by definition speculation. It might be well founded speculation and you can gather much indirect evidence that either suggest that it might have happened this or that way or which indicates that it is unlikely to have happened any other way but it remains speculation.

The problem is that there really is only two alternatives. One is to accept the gospels as 100% true - something which is absurd. The other is to accept that some of it is not true. The problem is then to pick out which parts are true in all this. We can identify some sections of the gospels as "not true" but it is very hard to establish any of them as "true" and any such picking and choosing is based on speculations.

We cannot even use "several gospels describe the same story" as indication that it is possibly true since they most likely either got it from each other or they got it from the same common source. I.e. they are not independent.

There are no records of Jesus birth anywhere - and if there were official records we would consider them forgeries as regular rural peaants on the country side did not get official records of birth within their families.

There appear to be very little extra gospel writings about Jesus. There are many gospels - also most of which did not make it into the bible and some people think that those who are not in the bible does tell us about the "real" Jesus. The problem here should be obvious: If the gospels that are in the bible is obviously wrong on several points about Jesus' life then we have zip indication that other gospels are any closer to the truth. it is not like they discarded gospels from the bible on the basis that they only wanted to keep false stories. The people who included the gospels in the bible (GLuke, GMatt, GMark and GJohn) believed them to be "true" in some sense of that word.

Thus, the mere fact that a gospel is not in the bible is not in itself evidence that it is closer to the truth about Jesus.

Likewise, just because a gospel reject miracles and tells about a "orrdinary preacher" Jesus, is not an indication that it is necessarily more true than the gospels we have in the bible today. It is not obviously false either you might argue but it is a long way from "not obviously false" to "true".

Alf

gurugeorge · 10-04-2006, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not sure you follow me. Perhaps I need to make myself clearer.

As I understood you, you suggested not only that such experiences occur (which I don't dispute) and not only that founders of religions have them (which may well be true) but also that people who claim to have them but don't succeed in attracting a religious following can be assumed, on that basis, to be frauds.

It's not a logical necessity, it's an indicator. There are of course people who have those experiences but don't look for followers; and there are charlatans or deluded people who attract followers. But the conviction arising from having a real experience of enlightenment or real experience of communication with a deity definitely can attract followers if they're wanted, and since charlatanism and self-delusion are difficult to sustain, and eventually seen through, it's a reasonably safe bet that (other things being equal) someone who attracts a following has pretty much had the experiences they claim to have had. It's not a sure-fire indicator, but it's a the closest we have to something objective that can show genuineness.

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

10-03-2006, 11:26 PM	#126
TrueMyth Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Shadowlands Posts: 430	It will probably be helpful, given the breadth and scope of the discussion so far, to bring an overall picture together, at least as I perceive it. 1. Jesus, the man, actually existed. 1a. This fact is historically provable. Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Origen, and others attest to his existence. 1b. Josephus' references in particular have come under scrutiny, but there are at least parts of them which are commonly accepted as authentic. 2. From these historical records, we can deduce the following bare facts about the Historical Jesus: 2a. He was the brother of James 2b. He was considered "a wise man" and a "doer of wonders" 2c. He drew a crowd of followers to him at least partly as the result of his teachings 2d. Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius, most likely for inciting the people 2e. Christians are named after Jesus, based on the title they gave him: the Christ 2f. (This is a deduction from 2c and 2e) Christians, at least in the beginning, follow the teachings of Jesus as they perceive them. 3. The authenticity of the Bible in recording the actual sayings of Jesus is in question. However, very few scholars reject it entirely. Even the Jesus Seminar finds about 18% of the sayings of Jesus in the Bible to be "authentic" or "nearly authentic" 3a. The Jesus Seminar, while a marvel of scholarship, suffers from presuppositions which limit the total efficacy of its conclusions to a certain audience. Among these presuppositions are a committment to a naturalistic worldview and the controversial criterion of dissimilarity. 3b. In all, it can be said about the JS that its scholarship is remarkable, and its project is ambitious, but its most useful contribution has not been to find the definite historical Jesus. Rather, it has uncovered a historical Jesus which can be said to be almost certain to be authentic of what was there, but not of what was not. Thus, it seems as if the work of the JS must be a starting point, but cannot be an ending point. 4. What statements we can attribute to Jesus as authentic with a relative degree of certainty, indicate that he was iconoclastic, original in his morality, gave special attention to the poor, and critical of worldly power. 4a. Jesus' moral originality did not stem from his complete and utter separation from (then) past or present morality; rather, it shifted the focus from exhaustive laws to general principles, deemphasized the role of specific culture, and brought out to the forefront themes which were then considered secondary, tertiary, etc. In a few very rare cases, he offered an entirely novel approach. 5. The search for the Historical Jesus is useful and good. 5a. However, we must be careful from the outset (both Christians, atheists, and in between) to at least be aware of what the presuppositions of our historical inquiry will a priori either include or exclude. 5b. Much of the search for the HJ has resulted in a mirror image of the searcher; reflecting the need for awareness of bias in scholarship. 5c. The HJ uncovered so far, as free of bias as may be, is neither especially conducive for or against the Jesus of the Gospels 5d. The Jesus of the Gospels may or may not be identical to the Historical Jesus, it is impossible to determine at this point. This is the state of the discussion as I see it. As a final note, it may be the case that we have reached the end of objective HJ inquiry, and must proceed from this point further with scientifically rigorous investigations within particular worldviews and assumptions. However, I do not believe that the assertions stated above about the historical Jesus can be denied, by persons of any ideology, without encountering serious difficulties.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.