Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-25-2009, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are a few people who claim that the gospels were written as fake history to deceive. (Atwill, Carotta, and mountainman are the only 3 who come to mind.)

But usually it is only Christian apologists who bring this up, AS IF the only alternatives are "lie" versus "truth", and if there is no motive for lying, the gospels must be the TRUTH. This is a false dichotomy, a false conclusion, and a very distorted view of ancient literature and historical sources.

I do not know why others might bring it up. I am just trying to understand your position. You appear to be agreeing that there is no apparent motive for lying. You seem like someone who wants to understand the text we are discussing and yet you are not curious when you feel the authors had no motives for writing them. Isn't it impossible to actually write something without a motive for doing so. What other history (true or not) do you read where you do not want to understand why it was written?

~Steve

I do not think that the motive was to write accurate history. I think the gospels were written and understood as some higher truth.

IamJoseph · 07-25-2009, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

One of the most common skeptics objections to the empty tomb of Jesus is that the disciples stole Jesus' body and moved it to fool people into thinking Jesus was resurrected.

There's a problem with this objection. For one, Matthew mentions that there were guards at the tomb. Pilate ordered these guards to go to the tomb to make sure the DISCIPLES DID NOT STEAL THE BODY. Since it was punishable BY DEATH for a Roman soldier to leave their post, the "disciples stole the body" theory flies right out the window.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the disciples were able to somehow distract the guards away from guarding the tomb, there is still the problem of the big stone placed in front of the entrance way.The stone weighed several tons and required many men to move it. How did the disciples have enough time to move the stone? Unless you argue the Roman guards were sleeping. But, if caught sleeping, this also could've meant death for the soldiers. When Pilate tells you to do something, you're damn well gonna do it.

Your using one part of the Gospels to prove another part thereof.

IamJoseph · 07-25-2009, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I do not know why others might bring it up. I am just trying to understand your position. You appear to be agreeing that there is no apparent motive for lying. You seem like someone who wants to understand the text we are discussing and yet you are not curious when you feel the authors had no motives for writing them. Isn't it impossible to actually write something without a motive for doing so. What other history (true or not) do you read where you do not want to understand why it was written?

~Steve

I do not think that the motive was to write accurate history. I think the gospels were written and understood as some higher truth.

What is that higher truth, and how is this manifest and alligned with European history? IMHO< the only factor which bears any merit is that the christian belief, as opposed what is believed, is genuine.

When there is not a shred of proof of anything in the Gospels, not even any historical proof for any of the Apostles, for a period when this cannot be excused, it must mean the report is wholly fictional, and a guile.

Religion based on belief, compounded with choiceless enforcement, is the most exploitable faculty with humanity - being not subject to it being true or good after some time. 99% of all christians' ancesters were forced to believe.

IamJoseph · 07-25-2009, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church has lied to the world about Jesus.

It also lied about others, causing two holocausts, a 1400 year doctrine of persecution and false villifications - all in the name of love and the truth will set you free. The worst damage was to its christian victims, making them unable to believe in God where this is not also attached to the negation of another people.

This has far reaching potentials for the future: if the Gospels is not true, it impacts Islam also, which condoned as divine revalation what was not. Where does this leave humanity, with over 3B people effected? While this can be said of any and all religions, they are a stand out factor with two of the biggest belief systems. Thus far, these two religions have been musling in to negate one small group as its escape - because both beliefs are negatively impacted by the very existence of the witness to the prosecution.

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susan2

So, if the gospels aren’t the truth, then they are a lie? What is the motive for lying?

The word 'lie' implies an intent to decieve. Something can be grossly false, and yet not be a lie.

For example, there was a time when people believed consciousness was encapsulated in an ephemeral thing known as a soul. We now know that's incorrect and that consciousness is a brain function. Those who spread the nontruth were not lying, even though they were wrong. Many people today still believe the soul myth and continue to spread it out of ignorance rather than malice.

Tom Sawyer is a work of fiction. Although it is false, it is not a lie, because the intent of the author was to entertain, not deceive.

This is one of the fundamental flaws made by laymen analyzing the Gospels (which includes me) - to start off by assuming that the intent of the authors was to dutifully record history. There is no reason whatsoever to make that assumption, and an analysis of the genre (see Talbert) does not indicate this assumption is even very reasonable.

...as an afterthought, people do sometimes actually intentionally lie as well, and it isn't uncommon to find works of intentional deceit in writing, so that isn't a prior an invalid position either. It only becomes invalid as we dig deeper into understanding the culture and the genre of the writings.

well, you beleive Mark Twain had an intent. is that your premise, that the gospels were meant to entertain?

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I do not know why others might bring it up. I am just trying to understand your position. You appear to be agreeing that there is no apparent motive for lying. You seem like someone who wants to understand the text we are discussing and yet you are not curious when you feel the authors had no motives for writing them. Isn't it impossible to actually write something without a motive for doing so. What other history (true or not) do you read where you do not want to understand why it was written?

~Steve

I do not think that the motive was to write accurate history. I think the gospels were written and understood as some higher truth.

I can see thinking that they were written as some sort of allegory. (although there is no internal evidence to that effect unless you assume the documentation of the supernatural is that evidence - which I understand).

However, history does not bear out that they were understood that way.

Susan2 · 07-25-2009, 07:21 AM

Quote:

I do not think that the motive was to write accurate history. I think the gospels were written and understood as some higher truth.

If the motive was not to write/record accurate history, what was the motive?

Quote:

I think the gospels were written and understood as some higher truth.

Take out the redundancy and ascertain what’s left, ‘The gospels; higher truth’, a very strong, authoritative declaration, so very Romanesque.

Of course in order for there to be something higher there must be something lower with which to compare it. What were the writers of the gospels ultimately comparing, and contrasting?

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by Self-Mutation

One of the most common skeptics objections to the empty tomb of Jesus is that the disciples stole Jesus' body and moved it to fool people into thinking Jesus was resurrected.

There's a problem with this objection. For one, Matthew mentions that there were guards at the tomb. Pilate ordered these guards to go to the tomb to make sure the DISCIPLES DID NOT STEAL THE BODY. Since it was punishable BY DEATH for a Roman soldier to leave their post, the "disciples stole the body" theory flies right out the window.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the disciples were able to somehow distract the guards away from guarding the tomb, there is still the problem of the big stone placed in front of the entrance way.The stone weighed several tons and required many men to move it. How did the disciples have enough time to move the stone? Unless you argue the Roman guards were sleeping. But, if caught sleeping, this also could've meant death for the soldiers. When Pilate tells you to do something, you're damn well gonna do it.

Your using one part of the Gospels to prove another part thereof.

Why can't one witness be used to weigh / consider the validity of another witness?

Deus Ex · 07-25-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Your using one part of the Gospels to prove another part thereof.

Why can't one witness be used to weigh / consider the validity of another witness?

It might be a problem when one witness has read and copied off of the other witness's statements.

sschlichter · 07-25-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why can't one witness be used to weigh / consider the validity of another witness?

It might be a problem when one witness has read and copied off of the other witness's statements.

that is the case with any witness. they are still distinct witnesses and the example you are discussing is clearly not copied off of what is supposed the early witness where no guards are mentioned.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.