Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 02-07-2007, 01:31 AM

I for one am waiting to see Chris Weimer demonstrate that Jay's statements were pure bullshit. I am getting very tired of seeing dramatic descriptions being used instead of arguments. Very tired.
Weimer knows exactly how to show that Jay was wrong. Weimer knows what literature is and what history is. He knows Universities too so he can simply give examples of Universities with examples of departments that offer courses in a fashion that contradict's Jay's contentions. And so on and so forth.
Lets see some seriousness. Weimer doesnt even know Evan Powell? Most books on literary, rhetorical, narrative and form criticism have his name somewhere.

Steve Weiss · 02-07-2007, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I am not aware of any such signs.

To me, the Gospels appear to be intentional fabrications designed by one or more mystical Jews (which I have heard were very common at the time - can't provide any references for that).

The abundant allusions back to the Old Testament are not there to show the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather, because Jesus is a mystical interpretation of the Old Testament, and the original author(s) invented him deliberately for that purpose. I won't deny evidence that later redactors took him literally and added to the stories as you imply.

I suspect that if someone who had never heard of Christianity before began an in depth study of the history, they would conclude that Jesus started as a mystical interpretation of the Old Testament designed with intent for that purpose, to promote the idea that the new age of Pisces was the prophesied kingdom, and that members of the group are thus heirs to that kingdom, and that the Messiah is the mystical fulfillment of those prophesies rather than the literal fulfillement. I think even the very name "Jesus" was selected for this purpose. Hell, even Paul admits as much when he uses the word "Logos" to refer to Jesus. Why is this so universally ignored even among secular historians?

The idea that there was a historical Jesus, and that later these myths grew up around him that so closely match a mystical interpretation of the Old Testament, does not satisy Occam's Razor, IMHO.

The suppressed Gnostic Gospels would confirm your mystical interpretation. Again I ask for someone to step forward and confirm the factuality of any Old Testament story and to establish its authorship. To say, as some do, that I must prove that the bible is fiction indicates that such people are willing to believe anything that they choose and that they do not understand the requirements of the burden of proof. No writing may be presumed to be accurate without verification, especially when such wild claims as made in the bible are considered.

spin · 02-07-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Again I ask for someone to step forward and confirm the factuality of any Old Testament story and to establish its authorship.

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the literature is all fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

To say, as some do, that I must prove that the bible is fiction...

If you label it fiction then you need to justify it. That should be simple enough for you to understand. You are making a substantive claim about it and our christian brethren will require the same from you, evidence for your claims. Why don't you provide some if you believe that it is so evident?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

...indicates that such people are willing to believe anything that they choose...

Unfounded misrepresentations won't help you to be more rational on the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

...and that they do not understand the requirements of the burden of proof.

Your misfortune is widening when you assume more of what you can't demonstrate. The burden of proof is a fairly easy concept: make a substantive claim and it will require you to demonstrate your claim, ie the burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, that's you.

It would be wiser and simpler, when dealing with christians, not to make claims you cannot support, but to require them to support their claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

No writing may be presumed to be accurate without verification, especially when such wild claims as made in the bible are considered.

On this I agree. Here you would be placing the burden of proof on those who support the texts as representing a past reality. That's where it should be. If, however, you go beyond what you can say, you'll be required the shoulder the burden of proof.

spin

Zeichman · 02-07-2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I for one am waiting to see Chris Weimer demonstrate that Jay's statements were pure bullshit.

Have you actually been reading this thread?

Quote:

I am getting very tired of seeing dramatic descriptions being used instead of arguments. Very tired.

PhilosopherJay's patronizing remarks about "emotivist philosophy" were far closer to this category than anything Chris said.

Quote:

Weimer knows exactly how to show that Jay was wrong. Weimer knows what literature is and what history is. He knows Universities too so he can simply give examples of Universities with examples of departments that offer courses in a fashion that contradict's Jay's contentions. And so on and so forth.

Or rather , Jay is once again appealing to a false dichotomy. Schools have separate biology, anthropology, sociology, archeology departments. Does this mean they aren't related? Schools also have Church history, biblical studies, systematic theology, and classics departments. Does this mean they aren't related? An absolutely silly argument.

Quote:

Lets see some seriousness. Weimer doesnt even know Evan Powell? Most books on literary, rhetorical, narrative and form criticism have his name somewhere.

PhilosopherJay has demonstrated far less knowledge about Biblical studies, yet here you are making a dramatic description instead of arguing against Chris.

spamandham · 02-07-2007, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

How else did Matthew move Jesus from Nazara to Capernaum? Why did the Matthean writer correct Mark so often for content?

I'm not arguing that the Gospels as they exist today were written as works of fiction, but rather, that the underlying character and many of the stories around him were. It's clear that later redactors built mythology on top of those stories based on their expectations.

I would not make the mistake of referring to Matthew as a single writer. There is clear evidence of multiple redactions. We have extra-Biblical evidence that the birth story of Matthew was a later addition. If you want to analyze the gospels, start with what they have in common and with what they have in common with nonBiblical writings as well. That get's as close to the original as is possible. Then the differences may be analyzed to determine the likely period and location of the redactions. I don't see how you could use the redactions as evidence of anything at all regarding the underlying original story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

In fact, what makes you think that there are any intentional fabrications in the christian texts at all?

I've already given you the passage of the 153 fish in John. It is clearly an appeal to Pythagoreans. Do you deny that? If so, how do you explain it from the perspective of myth making rather than fiction?

Steve Weiss · 02-07-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the literature is all fiction.

If you label it fiction then you need to justify it. That should be simple enough for you to understand. You are making a substantive claim about it and our christian brethren will require the same from you, evidence for your claims. Why don't you provide some if you believe that it is so evident?

Unfounded misrepresentations won't help you to be more rational on the subject.

Your misfortune is widening when you assume more of what you can't demonstrate. The burden of proof is a fairly easy concept: make a substantive claim and it will require you to demonstrate your claim, ie the burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, that's you.

It would be wiser and simpler, when dealing with christians, not to make claims you cannot support, but to require them to support their claims.

On this I agree. Here you would be placing the burden of proof on those who support the texts as representing a past reality. That's where it should be. If, however, you go beyond what you can say, you'll be required the shoulder the burden of proof.

spin

Every work is fictional until proven otherwise.

spamandham · 02-07-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

To say, as some do, that I must prove that the bible is fiction indicates that such people are willing to believe anything that they choose and that they do not understand the requirements of the burden of proof. No writing may be presumed to be accurate without verification, especially when such wild claims as made in the bible are considered.

If I understand the contention correctly, it isn't whether or not the Old Testament is true, but rather, quibbling about the word "fiction".

Spin is using the sense of "fiction" to mean a story that someone concocts that they KNOW is concocted. Mystical stories fit this definition of "fiction", since the author knows the story isn't literally true, but is instead attempting to invoke an analogy to something he believes is true, which is the same thing many writers of fiction do. Mythmaking on the other hand is not fiction, because the author believes it to be true. How can we tell whether or not an author believed what he was writing to be true or not? It's damned hard thousands of years after the fact, hence the endless debates about it.

I think you are using "fiction" in a looser sense, to simply mean something that isn't true?

aa5874 · 02-07-2007, 08:13 AM

A fabricated event is fictitious whether or not the author himself fabricated the event, whether or not the author believes the event is true.

If an event did not occur, the state of mind, the intentions or motive of the author is of no consequence, the event is fictious.

The story of Santa is fiction and the OT is also filled with fictitious events. The worlwide flood, creation, the story of the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the talking of a donkey, the sun 'standing' still, forgiveness of sin through the sacrifice of animals and other similar events.

The OT and NT are not credible sources of information, that has been established by 'most atheists'.

spin · 02-07-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Every work is fictional until proven otherwise.

Obviously including that dictum.

spin

(Bruce here's in charge of logical positivism and sheep dip.)

spin · 02-07-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I'm not arguing that the Gospels as they exist today were written as works of fiction, but rather, that the underlying character and many of the stories around him were. It's clear that later redactors built mythology on top of those stories based on their expectations.

Somewhere in here you may see the problem in your certainty. What we actually have in the biblical literature are traditions which are already full bodied by the time they reach our earliest recorded forms. What's behind the traditions is back there before those first preserved texts. We can make certain inroads on those texts to reveal something of what happened before those texts. But I don't think there is much hope of getting too far down the road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I would not make the mistake of referring to Matthew as a single writer. There is clear evidence of multiple redactions. We have extra-Biblical evidence that the birth story of Matthew was a later addition. If you want to analyze the gospels, start with what they have in common and with what they have in common with nonBiblical writings as well. That get's as close to the original as is possible. Then the differences may be analyzed to determine the likely period and location of the redactions. I don't see how you could use the redactions as evidence of anything at all regarding the underlying original story.

I'm not hopeful of much, but then in this situation, your hopes for your claimed tendentious manipulators seem even fainter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I've already given you the passage of the 153 fish in John. It is clearly an appeal to Pythagoreans. Do you deny that? If so, how do you explain it from the perspective of myth making rather than fiction?

You've alluded to it to me a number of times in this thread without supplying any information to explain your point. It's hard to deny something that depends on you and you're not telling about it.

spin

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

02-07-2007, 01:31 AM	#81
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	I for one am waiting to see Chris Weimer demonstrate that Jay's statements were pure bullshit. I am getting very tired of seeing dramatic descriptions being used instead of arguments. Very tired. Weimer knows exactly how to show that Jay was wrong. Weimer knows what literature is and what history is. He knows Universities too so he can simply give examples of Universities with examples of departments that offer courses in a fashion that contradict's Jay's contentions. And so on and so forth. Lets see some seriousness. Weimer doesnt even know Evan Powell? Most books on literary, rhetorical, narrative and form criticism have his name somewhere.

02-07-2007, 08:13 AM	#88
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	A fabricated event is fictitious whether or not the author himself fabricated the event, whether or not the author believes the event is true. If an event did not occur, the state of mind, the intentions or motive of the author is of no consequence, the event is fictious. The story of Santa is fiction and the OT is also filled with fictitious events. The worlwide flood, creation, the story of the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the talking of a donkey, the sun 'standing' still, forgiveness of sin through the sacrifice of animals and other similar events. The OT and NT are not credible sources of information, that has been established by 'most atheists'.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.