Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ercatli · 12-26-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

It is significant that scholarship (and not just christian apologetic scholarship) is increasingly concluding more positively about the historicity and reliability of the gospels. I first studied this stuff a long time ago, when people like Bultmann were the most influential, but a lot has changed since then, and more rigorous methods are leading to this change.

This is not true, but you keep repeating it.

There was a phase in the "third quest" for the historical Jesus when non-apologetic scholars thought that they could extract some historicity from the gospels, but that turns out to have been a pious hope. The current trend is to see the gospels as literary creations with at best some tie to early traditions.

G'day Toto. In contrast to our respective opinions on the historical Jesus, whatever is the general opinion of scholars is a factual matter (whether their opinion is correct or not), although not easy to establish. So which scholars are you basing your conclusion on? You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Best wishes.

ercatli · 12-26-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Do you believe that there was a man called Jesus who performed miracles (basically, those in the Gospels) in Galilee and developed a group of followers and who was killed on a cross and whose followers were the antecedents to the Christian church?

Of course.

ercatli · 12-26-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

If you don't want to be persuaded to change your beliefs, then fine.

I don't think so. I put the "If" there for a reason. According to the rules of logic, the assertion "If A then B" is never equivalent to asserting the truth of A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Why not say it about yourself, or about anyone else here?

I would, given an appropriate context. I think it's true of everybody.

OK. Thanks for explaining that.

ercatli · 12-26-2009, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

But how is Matthew’s claim that Jesus rose from the dead significantly different from Matthew’s claim that the zombies (27:52) rose from the dead?

I already answered that. To repeat, I don't know what was in "Matthew's" mind when he wrote each story. But the historians make judgments and so do I, and my previous answer reflects that.

Quote:

Stay focused. Answer honestly.

So your back is against the wall. And now whether you like it or not you are going to show us - by your own actions, if your are genuinely seeking the truth with all your heart, or if you are like the swine in Matthew 7:6.

I see than as a snide attempt at manipulation, and I reject it. It is unworthy of anyone and I hope you apologise for it. If you try it again I will ignore you. (I can't imagine that will ruin your day! :devil1

Quote:

An honest/ straightforward person must admit that Matthew treats the two resurrections with the same degree of seriousness and the same degree of literalness. That is to say that if Matthew thought that the zombies’ resurrection was symbolic then it follows that Matthew also thought that Jesus’ resurrection was symbolic.

(1) You will have noted that I made no claim either way about the "zombie" story (although zombie is not a sensible word for it, and makes it harder for anyone to take you seriously - again you appear like you are trying to have a snide dig than a serious discussion).

(2) How do you make the confident judgment that "Matthew treats the two resurrections with the same degree of seriousness and the same degree of literalness"?

(3) So, is your hypothesis that a person cannot use two different forms of writing in the one document?

Please either continue this discussion seriously and courteously, or not at all. One such post can be overlooked, but a second shows you are not attempting a friendly discussion as in the OP.

Best wishes.

Elijah · 12-26-2009, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

I too believe. I too try to understand him rationally (I actually don't know any other way to understand something). And I think in this context superstition is an emotive word we apply to things other people believe and we don't, and they apply to things we believe and they don't. I'm not concerned about that jibe.

Superstition is taking the myth and art that tries to explain the nature of the spiritual elements of the universe literally and doesn’t use reason to understand the universe and its source. If you prefer irrational I can go with that but it’s superstition.

Quote:

I don't think so.

Explain why you don’t think so then because I’m having a hard time understanding why you don’t see the contradiction.

Quote:

No, I never wanted to do that, I just think he made space and time and remains able to act within it - after all, he is generally defined as omnipotent!

That’s fine that he created space and time but there are two ways to understand God. Constant or changing. The constant understanding of God is understood as operating outside of time and space… that’s what makes it constant. The changing understanding of God is like its creation and is operating in time and space. This is fine if that’s something you want to believe but then you have to explain why we can’t perceive god without using the idea that he is outside time and space because the understanding of god you are presenting is not by its behavior you describe operating outside space and time.

As I said before faith is a muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch easier explanation for the miracles without making God into a genie.

Quote:

Ouch! That really hurt!

I don't think this discussion is heading anywhere useful so I'll say farewell to you. Best wishes.

It’s not meant to hurt you, just illustrate how your understanding of God appears. I believe in promoting a rational understanding of God and the biggest problem to that is people like yourself pushing a genie concept of God that justifies their rejection of God altogether.

Larkin31 · 12-27-2009, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Do you believe that there was a man called Jesus who performed miracles (basically, those in the Gospels) in Galilee and developed a group of followers and who was killed on a cross and whose followers were the antecedents to the Christian church?

Of course.

You already believe that there was a historical Jesus, and that the details of his life and the Passion are historically true. So what is this about here?

Doug Shaver · 12-27-2009, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

So what is this about here?

If I correctly understand the OP, he wants us to explain why we believe he is mistaken, but without trying to convince him that he is mistaken.

Larkin31 · 12-27-2009, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

So what is this about here?

If I correctly understand the OP, he wants us to explain why we believe he is mistaken, but without trying to convince him that he is mistaken.

Yes, I saw that.

Toto · 12-27-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

..

G'day Toto. In contrast to our respective opinions on the historical Jesus, whatever is the general opinion of scholars is a factual matter (whether their opinion is correct or not), although not easy to establish. So which scholars are you basing your conclusion on? You show me yours and I'll show you mine...

You are the one making the assertion, so you should produce your proof.

I have previously referred you to the Jesus Project scholars. You can search this forum for links to essays by R. Joseph Hoffman for a start.

Chaucer · 12-27-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

..

G'day Toto. In contrast to our respective opinions on the historical Jesus, whatever is the general opinion of scholars is a factual matter (whether their opinion is correct or not), although not easy to establish. So which scholars are you basing your conclusion on? You show me yours and I'll show you mine...

You are the one making the assertion, so you should produce your proof.

I have previously referred you to the Jesus Project scholars. You can search this forum for links to essays by R. Joseph Hoffman for a start.

-- who has now all but disowned the JP's effort to address the historicity question, BTW.

Chaucer

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.