Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-Jay- · 04-11-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That would be the Crisis on Infinite Earths series.

Yet another reason to prefer Marvel in my admittedly comic-geek opinion.

Except for the whole Ben Reilly/Peter Parker Spiderman clone crap...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Back to BC&H.

I recently finished The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Dennis MacDonald, which attempts to connect GMk with The Iliad and The Odyssey. From this perspective, narrative constructs and situations become points of contrast and comparison that readers at the time would have related to and found significance in. This significance may well be lost on later readers, who lack the assumed familiarity with the imitated/emulated material.

The thing that most modern readers of the Gospels (or indeed, any ancient text) trip over is that we don't understand the context that the work was written in, or the audience it was written to.

regards,

NinJay

(ObThanks - I think it was Toto that mentioned the MacDonald book some months ago. Thanks for the tip.)

04-11-2008, 03:38 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

If I were going to write a forgery in the hopes of springing up a new religion (Christianity)

Forgery? Fraudulent?
Who said that?

The Mythical Jesus argument is NOT about fraud and/or forgery at all.

Please pay attention.

Iasion

04-11-2008, 03:56 PM

Hiya,

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

If I were going to write a forgery in the hopes of springing up a new religion (Christianity) drawing from another religion (Judaism) I would be very careful not to betray the fraud through inaccuracies.

No-one claims it a "fraud", please study the JM subject more carefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

I would fact check and make everything as pristinely accurate as possible in the hope that the fraud could be passed off as genuine.

The Scientology beliefs contain all sorts of in-accurate and wrong claims - does that make it true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

Yet when I look at the NT I see 1) Clear evidence of knowledge of 1rst century Judaism and rabbinics while at the same time 2) seeming inaccuracies, that should have been avoided were the alleged fiction writer knowledgeable of 1rst century rabbinics.

The writer was a human being with failings and opinions - why SHOULD he be 100% correct? Were all the Greek myths consistent? No. Are all the Bond books accurate? No. Are the Star Wars novels all 100%? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

In a roundabout way this makes some of the writings look more legitimate, to me,

So, errors and inaccuracies make a writing correct, do they? Such as Mormonism? Scientology? Greek Myths? Hinduism?

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

than they would otherwise (and by legitimate, I don't mean "religiously true," I am not Christian-- by "legitimate" I mean "not a concocted and premeditated historical fraud").

The JM argument is NOT about a
"concocted and premeditated historical fraud".

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

So it appears to me that this is an actual, historical, report of an illegal convocation and trial by the Sanhedrin. If the writer(s) were knowingly creating a fraud, wouldn't they have been careful to write the fiction by illustrating a legal convocation of the Sanhedrin that wouldn't raise any questions?

So, you think errors and inaccuracies make a story true?

Iasion

mens_sana · 04-11-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

So it appears to me that this is an actual, historical, report of an illegal convocation and trial by the Sanhedrin. If the writer(s) were knowingly creating a fraud, wouldn't they have been careful to write the fiction by illustrating a legal convocation of the Sanhedrin that wouldn't raise any questions?

What if the writer was deliberately concocting an illegal trial?

A compelling question! But what if there was no trial at all? What if the soldiers had standing orders, during the Passover festival, to crucify anyone accused of, or showing signs, of causing a disturbance? Or, maybe there was no trial, perhaps it was a Star Chamber; that would avoid all the halakhic problems.

Acetylhexene · 04-11-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

If I were going to write a forgery in the hopes of springing up a new religion (Christianity) drawing from another religion (Judaism) I would be very careful not to betray the fraud through inaccuracies. I would fact check and make everything as pristinely accurate as possible in the hope that the fraud could be passed off as genuine.

Because Readers Are Morons.

Gamera · 04-11-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by apatura_iris

This might seem like a paradoxical question, but let me explain.

If I were going to write a forgery in the hopes of springing up a new religion (Christianity) drawing from another religion (Judaism) I would be very careful not to betray the fraud through inaccuracies. I would fact check and make everything as pristinely accurate as possible in the hope that the fraud could be passed off as genuine.

First of all, when people lie or make false statements, it is the inconsistencies in their stories that give the indications of falsity. And many who lie or give false statements try to be careful to appear accurate, however, it appears to be very difficult.

How accurate was Joseph Smith when he claimed that an angel called Moroni showed him some plates which he should copy?

The most important aspect of a new religion, it would appear, is its believeabilty.

This is superficially true, but in a deeper sense it isn't. I'm an attorney, and I depose people all the time. If two witnesses say exactly the same thing about an event, I mean exactly, it is evidence of fraud, specifically coaching. They put together a story and repeated it.

In real life, any two people witnessing an event will percieve it differently. Memory is always faulty (or rather memory actually constructs events out of various details). So, if I depose two people and they generally describe the same event, but the details are a little off, it is a sign of truthfulness.

It would be extraordinary, I mean, absolutely extraordinary for any complex event or series of events witnessed in the past by two people to have that event described exactly the same by those two people -- unless they are coached and not really describing the event.

In my view the "errors" and differences in the gospels are signs of veracity, not the opposite. I think the OP has it right: anybody who was trying to commit a fraud would be scrupulous in the details, while a normal person, convinced of the accuracy of the events they witnesses or passed down to them by witnesses, get the basic narrative and doesn't worry about inconsistencies in detail.

skunker · 04-11-2008, 07:35 PM

Nice points Gamera.

aa5874 · 04-11-2008, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

First of all, when people lie or make false statements, it is the inconsistencies in their stories that give the indications of falsity. And many who lie or give false statements try to be careful to appear accurate, however, it appears to be very difficult.

How accurate was Joseph Smith when he claimed that an angel called Moroni showed him some plates which he should copy?

The most important aspect of a new religion, it would appear, is its believeabilty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

This is superficially true, but in a deeper sense it isn't. I'm an attorney, and I depose people all the time. If two witnesses say exactly the same thing about an event, I mean exactly, it is evidence of fraud, specifically coaching. They put together a story and repeated it.

Now, if two persons say exactly the same thing about an event, how can you prove it is fraud?

Are you really a lawyer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamers

In real life, any two people witnessing an event will percieve it differently. Memory is always faulty (or rather memory actually constructs events out of various details). So, if I depose two people and they generally describe the same event, but the details are a little off, it is a sign of truthfulness.

What is a "little off"? And which one would be a "little off"?

And if two person make some different statements about an event, using your logics, the parts that are different would be true, and those that are the same would be false.

For example:

Witness A. John got shot Monday.

Witness B. John got shot Friday.

Using your logics, it is likely that John never got shot, but whatever happened was done on Monday and Friday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It would be extraordinary, I mean, absolutely extraordinary for any complex event or series of events witnessed in the past by two people to have that event described exactly the same by those two people -- unless they are coached and not really describing the event.

So the Synoptics must be false with respect to the stories about Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In my view the "errors" and differences in the gospels are signs of veracity, not the opposite. I think the OP has it right: anybody who was trying to commit a fraud would be scrupulous in the details, while a normal person, convinced of the accuracy of the events they witnesses or passed down to them by witnesses, get the basic narrative and doesn't worry about inconsistencies in detail.

Well, since you are an attorney, what does lying to a Grand Jury or making a false statement mean? People have always been trying to conceal the truth by lying or by giving false statements and whenever statements contradict, or are inconsistent, then they may be considered false.

Decypher · 04-12-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In my view the "errors" and differences in the gospels are signs of veracity, not the opposite. I think the OP has it right: anybody who was trying to commit a fraud would be scrupulous in the details, while a normal person, convinced of the accuracy of the events they witnesses or passed down to them by witnesses, get the basic narrative and doesn't worry about inconsistencies in detail.

A gospel author may not have been concerned with the fact that 4 gospels would be collected together in a Bible. The gospel writers could have intended to tell a somewhat different story to each other. They aren't going to be concerned with inconsistencies, if they are telling a different story.

If you look at the gospels, they were plagiarized. Witnesses do not need to do that. But when you copy from a source, you don't have to copy it exactly. You can add something new. You can change a part if you don't like it. And if they did that, because they weren't concerned with strict history, and/or weren't concerned to tell the same story at all times, then you could end up with inconsistencies.

skunker · 04-12-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

In my view the "errors" and differences in the gospels are signs of veracity, not the opposite. I think the OP has it right: anybody who was trying to commit a fraud would be scrupulous in the details, while a normal person, convinced of the accuracy of the events they witnesses or passed down to them by witnesses, get the basic narrative and doesn't worry about inconsistencies in detail.

A gospel author may not have been concerned with the fact that 4 gospels would be collected together in a Bible. The gospel writers could have intended to tell a somewhat different story to each other. They aren't going to be concerned with inconsistencies, if they are telling a different story.

If you look at the gospels, they were plagiarized. Witnesses do not need to do that. But when you copy from a source, you don't have to copy it exactly. You can add something new. You can change a part if you don't like it. And if they did that, because they weren't concerned with strict history, and/or weren't concerned to tell the same story at all times, then you could end up with inconsistencies.

may....could have....if....if....do not...need....can....if.....could....can...don't.. .if...because....could...

I don't know. This sums up the responses on this page. Too many "ifs" and "buts".

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

04-11-2008, 07:35 PM	#17
skunker Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 33	Nice points Gamera.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.