Zed

You mean no historical revisionist scholar. The authors of Jesus' life story meant it literally and said as much; their immediate audience understood it literally and wrote about their understanding; and that understanding was upheld for generations after that.

If you have one single shred of evidence, in the form of a gospel author stating that his account is merely a parable, then let me know. I work with evidence, not the sayings of "reputable scholars" of your choice.

Russellonius

Charles Dickens did not explicitly state that the Ghost of Christmas Past was a fictional character within the story. Nor Ebenezer Scrooge.

It's not nice to tell other peoples' children that Santa Claus is not real. You have not raised a valid point, Zed

Only atheists and Christian fundamentalists insist that scripture must be taken literally. Why do you insist that a story having a historical setting makes it an effort to give a historical account.

Do you believe Jesus really did perform supernatural actions?

If the gospels are literary creations, we would expect that the miracles were attributed to Jesus after the fact if indeed any facts about Jesus are presented. What we know about 'Jesus' is the result of literary production. He may have been a composite figure used as a symbolic literary foil to accomplish the goals of the producers. This type of thing is commonly observed in nature.

Charles Dickens seems to have intended to increase the level of kindness and charitableness. His composition employed existing cultural symbols and roles. Even though he did not state internally that it was fiction, we recognize the genre.

Pharisees not being given a 'sign' indicates that they were the out-group. Unlike Mr. Scrooge in A Christmas Carol it does not seem that the authors of the gospels anticipated that the Pharisees might become part of the in-group.

Ebenezer Scrooge represents people with wealth. Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim represent people who are economically dependent upon the people with wealth. Of course I can't prove that, but it seems a reasonable claim.

They did not. 'Signs' are literary creations. Jesus represented a certain demographic and the Pharisees another. The proliferation of apocryphal stories about Jesus, the scripture mining for biographical details about him and the supernatural and cosmic claims associated with the Jesus literary creation all indicate that the producers of the writings knew they were creating myths.

My info is that the literalist interpretation of the Bible did not arise until Martin Luther said sola scriptura, knocking out two of the three sources of authority in the RCC. Without the authority of the Pope and the traditions of the Church Fathers and left with only one source of divine authority Protestants had to actually start studying their Bibles, erroneously assuming that clear answers would be found there due to the supernatural agency of its creation.

Zed

Russellonius,

You are partially right that fundamentalists and atheists (like me) take the Bible literally. That may be true about the Old Testament, but the story of Jesus has always been taken literally by the Catholic Church and all Christians before Martin Luther. The only "Christian" group today that insists that the New Testament be taken figuratively is the post modernist Christian movement.

Charles Dickens made it clear, and his immediate audience understood, that his writings were fictitious.

The gospel writers SAID they were writing history. Their audience (Paul among them) said it was history. The church fathers after that (Augustine, Clement, ...) said it was history.

Zed

Why do you assume the cosmic and supernatural claims made by the gospel authors indicate they were writing myths? Are you saying they couldn't have possibly meant such ridiculous claims literally? Why not? People are that stupid! The audiences of such writings are indeed that gullible. You want proof? Look around you and then come back and tell me, "Oh they couldn't have meant it literally!" People believed in Hercules and Zeus literally. People believe in all kinds of crap.

I like your argument against Biblical Literalism though. I will call it the "People can't be that dumb" argument.

Russellonius

I have a copy of the book. Would you please point out the passage where Dickens makes it clear that A Christmas Carol is fiction? Everybody understands it's fiction because we recognize the genre, not because it labels itself as such.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is literally true only with respect to the requirements of salvation, and not in any other way. You are making a straw man argument.

Paul did not claim to have met Jesus and claims that only two of his followers knew his face for the first 17 years of his ministry. Paul claimed that his information about Jesus came from a supernatural source. One might take his claims as literally true only if one credits the supernatural source. Not everybody believed that Paul had access to this supernatural source, although it could reasonably be argued that people who accepted Paul's supernatural claims would also have thought events he described happened in history. And they did, even if they were taken only as mythical. That is the nature of religion, unlike fiction like that of Dickens.

Paul was run out of Jerusalem after failing to make a defense of his claims, according to the book of Acts (suggesting out-group status).

It's not just mine. Augustine is not supporting your "literalism is the ancient Christian tradition" claim either (though as a religionist he did support mythical claims):

You must have your reasons for accepting a literalistic reading but by doing so you are labeling yourself as a conservative Protestant atheist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. We all prefer some products over others, usually for idiosyncratic reasons. Is you background conservative Protestant?

Zed

What is the evidence that Charles Dickens' novel was intended to be fiction? It says on the first page that it's a "ghost story". The publisher received it as a work of fiction, and the audience understood it as such for generations. Not to mention the book itself never claimed to be literal history.

The Catholic Church has no clear official position on whether stories like Noah and Jonah are literally true. (I'm aware of Augustine's quote). But both the Church and its founding fathers teach that Jesus', say, resurrection was literally true. Heck, they also teach that Jesus taught that the bread and the wine literally transform into his blood and body, which is stupid because Jesus actually implies it was a symbolic thing (i.e. He said do this to remember me, not do this because it has supernatural significance).

Paul was a second generation audience to the gospels, and his understanding was literal (he states that if the resurrection was not literally true, it's all in vain).

I don't know why you find it hard to believe that people back then took this stuff literally. We're talking about an era where mountain gods impregnated women and begat half-gods all the time, and people believed it. Even today people believe stories like the Virgin Mary appearing and healing people.

I come from a Catholic background. My reasons for believing the Bible was intended literally are one: it appears to be that way. I would reject the Bible either way, so changing my mind on this issue would not change anything in my worldview.

I think embarrassed liberal revisionists are largely behind this notion though, of claiming that those ridiculous stories were just parables, silly us! They're trying to maintain some credibility for their holy book.

But even if I were to accept that the Jesus story was just a parable, it would still be a horrible, immoral parable that any decent person should reject.

Russellonius

There are purveyors and consumers of religious products. Products are not religious products unless they have a supernatural element. Undoubtedly many people took NT claims literally as historically true, then - and still today. Maybe Paul himself believed the supernatural events he described happened, but it seems to me more likely that Paul made up a story with a goal in mind. Asking "What was the goal?" is a lot more interesting than saying "It's all crap".

Magicians know the tricks they use to fool the audience. The audience is just fooled.

Religion is not magic. Religion is an ongoing exchange relationship amongst a loyal group of consumers. Magic involves discrete transactions between individuals who lack loyalty to the magician-purveyor - it's results-driven. Both involve supernatural claims. Consumers of supernatural products are not satisfied with products that fail to deliver on a supernatural level. So you are right that people would not have been loyal to a religious product that failed to deliver. People were and are loyal to the Christian religion - solid evidence that it delivers.

Since we know that magicians use trickery to make it appear as if they cause supernatural events to occur, it seems reasonable that purveyors of religious products would also be privy to the 'trickery' involved in religious claims. The goal of some skeptics is to 'peer behind the curtain' to see what 'tricks' the purveyors used to create the Christian religion. The producers knew the tricks. It's up to us to try to find them out because their intention was to fool us.

Saying that you are not a consumer of a certain product is not very interesting. Saying that you are very interested in and highly motivated to discuss a product that you choose not to consume is debatable. You are consuming the product when you come here and expend time and effort analyzing the specifications of the product. You consume in a non-traditional way, more like a purveyor - or in your case, an anti-purveyor.

If I tried to convince you not to buy Coke products would you be susceptible to aligning your consumer tastes with mine? It rots your gut, you know. "Please don't buy products that I don't like" is a kind of nonsense too. In the case of religion it's proselytizing.

Atheists typically spend more time and effort studying religion than religionists do. (http://pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Kn...-Religion.aspx)

Time and effort are costs associated with purchasing non-tangible products. If it's a load of crap, why is it worth your time and effort?

Zed

I think it's more gullibility than trickery. It's a story whose very evolution is all about a little exaggeration here and there with an accumulative effect. I have very closely known people who believe these things. No trickery involved.

I'm not a "consumer" of religion, just like a former alcoholic is not a consumer of alcohol, even though he might be very interested in the subject of alcoholism.

Everyone around me is religious. Politicians invoke supernatural forces while making decisions that affect my life. How could I be uninterested in religion?

JoeWallack

JW:
Beware the leaven of the Priests and Theologians whose Jesus did not rise any higher than the Passover lamb or the matzoh. The issue of miracles is treated much differently by different Gospels. The only Gospel that really matters is the original one:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8

The combination of the extent of the Impossible and Contrived in "Mark" makes Fiction the default and starting point for analysis of any individual story. The starting question is what was the author communicating and not what was HJ communicating. Sounds like you are hip to that.

When it comes to betting on Women's Tennis I always bet against the heterosexual and when it comes to "Mark" I always start with the Legendary Vorkosigan:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark08.html

The offending verse:

http://biblos.com/mark/8-12.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	And
ἀναστενάξας	anastenaxas	389	V-AAP-NSM	having sighed deeply
τῷ	tō	3588	T-DSN	in the
πνεύματι	pneumati	4151	N-DSN	spirit
αὐτοῦ	autou	846	P-GSM	of him
λέγει	legei	3004	V-PAI-3S	he says
τί	ti	5101	I-NSN	why
ἡ	ē	3588	T-NSF	the
γενεὰ	genea	1074	N-NSF	generation
αὕτη	autē	3778	D-NSF	this
ζητεῖ	zētei	2212	V-PAI-3S	seek
σημεῖον	sēmeion	4592	N-ASN	sign
ἀμὴν	amēn	281	HEB	truly
λέγω	legō	3004	V-PAI-1S	I am telling
εἰ	ei	1487	COND	no
δοθήσεται	dothēsetai	1325	V-FPI-3S	will be given
τῇ	tē	3588	T-DSF	the
γενεᾷ	genea	1074	N-DSF	generation
ταύτῃ	tautē	3778	D-DSF	to this
σημεῖον	sēmeion	4592	N-ASN	sign

Note the offending word "εἰ" which is a conditional, "if", "whether". Per the lexicons there was an underlying Hebrew idiom (Judge, look out!) where the construction is first part oath and second part literally conditional with a meaning of negative and Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible have the same construct. In the first part of the Greek here the "truly" is Jesus' version of an oath and combined with the conditional makes the second part a negative. The English version would be something like, "I'll be damned if you get another cookie from me" meaning you will not be getting another cookie. There's also no variation in the Manuscripts here meaning the construct was understood.

Now, regarding the OP point that the no sign declaration to Skeptics is an Apologetic there is certainly logic to the point. But note that "Mark's" declaration is to everyone "this generation". Again, first considering what the author is communicating, "Mark" has a primary theme that belief is based on Faith and not evidence (signs). The question is, when put on the spot, WHY does "Mark's" Jesus refuse to give a sign for the purpose of promoting belief? Because "Mark" has a primary theme that evidence not only does not create belief, it actually destroys belief. "Mark's" disciples receive more evidence than anyone else and have the least amount of faith. Total strangers who have never seen Jesus before and received no evidence, have the most faith. In "Mark" belief is directly related to faith and inversely related to evidence. As usual/always? this coordinates with Paul:

"1 Corinthians 1:22-23:

22 Since also Jews ask a sign, and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness,"

As Christianity gradually interActed with critics this Revelation (faith) philosophy was gradually converted to Historical Witness (evidence). The contrast can best be seen comparing "Mark" (first) with "John" (last). The original shows that faith creates belief in miracles while the last shows the opposite, miracles create faith. In an irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, his Gospel that was first, became last.

Here:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_8:12

I show the contradiction between "Mark" and "Matthew" regarding a sign in all its glory. As always, note that "Matthew's" basis for editing "Mark" is not a historical witness source but simply a reaction (negative) to what "Mark" wrote indicating that "Matthew" did not have any historical witness to refer to. I swear to God if Christianity claims that the Gospels complement each other (don't assume that the Gospels complement each other. They compete with each other).



Joseph


ErrancyWiki

Russellonius

Rational choice theory (RCT) assumes that people try to maximize benefits and minimize costs. It's a case of exceptionalism to assume that RCT applies to every branch of social sciences except to human religious behavior.

An impartial observer of human behavior would remark on the popularity or unpopularity of religious systems based on analysis of the religious economy as a result of direct observation (to the extent possible). Lots of people make transactions with purveyors of religious goods and services. It's always been that way so far as we know.

People buy stock in companies that subsequently go out of business. We don't claim that their behavior is irrational. It may have been a case of trickery on the part of the people who sold the stock, or gullibility on the part of the ones who bought it, but usually not. The company and its investors probably all tried but did not succeed in maximizing benefit. When people purchase a contract for eternal life, we do not know whether the policy pays. I think not, but people who enter into the contract are behaving rationally - they are trying to maximize benefit while minimizing cost.

When you try to persuade people one way or another about whether they should enter into such a contract for supernatural services, you are engaging in theology. Your information is not better than theirs so all you can do is give an opinion as a fellow consumer in the marketplace.

You cannot convince me that your hometown ball club is better than my hometown ball club even if yours always beats mine! I am not loyal to your team. My sports team consumer choice is perfectly rational even if you heard me say before the game, let the best team win. It might seem like a conflict to you, but I have no conflict.

Closed-mindedness is unbecoming to a skeptic. You seem to be saying you accept the Bible to be literally true for the purpose of rejecting its truth. What if you didn't start with an erroneous assumption?

If you were willing to change your worldview and accept that the producers and purveyors were in on the 'trick' even though the consumers were not, you might move from being a rebellious non-consumer of the product to being an analyst of the religious economy. Many consumers think remission of sins is a valuable commodity - valuable enough to trigger a decision to buy. Christianity represented a new delivery mechanism of this product. Why did religious entrepreneurs produce a new product channel at that time in history? Could supply-and-demand market forces have been involved?

It's not all that interesting whether an individual consumer buys the product but I think it's very interesting why so many consumers did and still do. Why they do is of critical interest. Whether they should is a product marketing issue.