Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lógos Sokratikós · 01-06-2009, 05:55 AM

In classical times, the physical nature of epilepsy and other mental disorders existed as opinions among opinions. I guess it was similar to the situation in the US where roughly half believe in creationism and the other believe the scientific point of view.

Doug Shaver · 01-06-2009, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Bauckham, Eyewitnesses to Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) proposes just such a distinction between testimony and tradition as his way to obviating form criticism. I'm not sure I buy it however, because I'm not so sure that there's anything inherent in being an eyewitness that necessarily makes the person more reliable.

I'm certainly not going to assume that everything an eyewitness says must be true just because it comes from a eyewitness.

More to Bauckham's point, though, is the absence of any compelling reason to believe that the gospel stories either were eyewitness accounts or originated as such. The claim that they record eyewitness testimony is just apologetic question-begging.

Doug Shaver · 01-06-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

When one is trying to do history on a group of marginalized and largely illiterate group of people, one is pretty much stuck in dealing with oral tradition.

The fact that oral tradition is your sole source doesn't make it a reliable source. And it makes no difference why you don't have any other sources.

S.C.Carlson · 01-06-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

When one is trying to do history on a group of marginalized and largely illiterate group of people, one is pretty much stuck in dealing with oral tradition.

The fact that oral tradition is your sole source doesn't make it a reliable source. And it makes no difference why you don't have any other sources.

And I never said it did. All sources have have to evaluated critically.

Stephen

Doug Shaver · 01-07-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

And I never said it did.

No, you didn't. My apologies.

Uncle Menno · 01-08-2009, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

2 Corinthians 12

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

Paul thinks there was a messenger of Satan tormenting him, and he pleaded with Jesus to take it away from him.

And Jesus answered back......

Is this the writing of a sane person?

How different are these accounts generically from the reports of Socrates' encounters with, variously, his daimon or the Oracles?

Chili · 01-08-2009, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So why did Paul need a 'real' Jesus when an imaginary deity could speak to him and everybody knew that you did not need a flesh-and-blood being on the other end of the conversation?

Because there is the angel of light pretending to be Jesus who leads followers in the opposite direction.

The 'flesh and blood being' is not Paul's idea of being real.

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

01-06-2009, 05:55 AM	#121
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	In classical times, the physical nature of epilepsy and other mental disorders existed as opinions among opinions. I guess it was similar to the situation in the US where roughly half believe in creationism and the other believe the scientific point of view.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.