FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-13-2003, 06:36 AM   #131
stretch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Hawkingfan
stretch,

It seems to me that you do not believe any other mythology is correct based on the "first cause" argument. Am I right in saying that? Are there any other reasons?
I don't believe that any polytheistic mythology involving the creation of a universe with contributions from distinct and separate gods can be correct, as this is inconsistent with a 'first cause' line of argument.

When it comes to choosing to align myself with a particular monotheistic faith tradition, with a particular version of a monotheistic story, etc. ... that is not a necessary consequence of being a theist. It then comes down to, yep, I'm going to say it again, because xians have no way of getting around it, a personal assessment of the credibility of the particular doctrines of that tradition. (And I'm sure, that is conditioned by a variety of factors, social, psychological and others.)

Basically, I don't think that your original question is one that xians necessarily ignore, but one which doesn't have an answer that is objective, in the sense that it can't be externally, universally vailidated. But in a lot of contexts and situation, sometimes humans have to work with subjective perceptions and make decisions based on limited information. A xian may be able to tell you something about why he or she decided to 'go with' that particular worldview, but heck, I can't understand why most other xians are xians.




Quote:

Without getting into a side argument about the "first cause"--if without the "first cause" argument, could you honestly tell me that you would be an atheist or agnostic, or maybe even a polytheist?
If I found a first cause argument to be completely implausible, my guess is that I'd be an atheist.
 
Old 07-14-2003, 11:06 AM   #132
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Mr. Amaranth

Funny thing here CX, trichotomy is a word!
Indeed it is, but "trichodemy" is not. And in any event assuming the poster meant "trichotomy" (I realize I'm being pedantic on this point) it's not really what was intended I don't think. "Trichotomy" only means divided into 3 parts and does not necessarily imply mutual exclusivity. Rather the word "trilemma" signifies choosing from 3 mutually exclusive possibilities. Lewis' "Lord, Liar or Lunatic" apology is regularly referred to as a "trilemma".
CX is offline  
Old 07-14-2003, 11:34 AM   #133
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Most obvious alternative? Are you on the Jesus Seminar? Did you co-author that one book with Karen Armstrong? Or maybe you've seen the Life of Brian one too many times?
Hmmm...this is definitely delving into B,C&H territory. As I'm not a moderator of this forum, perhaps one of the fine lads here can split this thread off if they think it is warranted. In any event, if you review the relevant literature on the subject, aside from apologetic material that is predicated on a particular confessional stance, it should be apparent that there is considerable question regarding the authorship and development of the NT canon. The Jesus Seminar is controversial not because of their view on the "synoptic problem" and other such text critical issues, but rather for their methodology in determining which are the authentic sayings of Jesus contained in the gospels.


As you fired off no fewer than 19 seperate questions, I'm obviously not inclined to answer each in depth. Here's a few one off responses. If there are any questions you are especially interested you might start a thread in B,C & H on just those.

Quote:
So you think the Gospels are legendary in nature?
Yes.

Quote:
The original recipients didn't think so (Irenaeus et al.).
I'm not sure I'd characterize Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons as an "original recipient"

Quote:
Do you suppose there are interpolations and contradictions?
Of course.

Quote:
Have you looked at the manuscript evidence yet?
Indeed, I have; at length. If you search the message archives here you'll find any number of discussions regarding MSS evidence of the NT. Perhaps you could outline your understanding of it. From there we can discuss the implications.

Quote:
Do you believe the authors intended their writing to be taken as trustworthy?
It would be impossible to say what the original authors' intents were.

Quote:
Were the authors of bad character?
Since all the gospels are anonymous it would be impossible to say anything about their character.

Quote:
Were the authors really someone other than they say they were?
Since they don't say who they are, your question is irrelevant.

Quote:
Did they have reason to lie?
Perhaps, perhaps not. People lie all the time for their religious beliefs so it's not inconcievable. It's equally likely that they are dealing with multiple lines of tradition of which they do not have direct knowledge and are therefore simply mistaken or filling in the unknown.

Quote:
Did they report only the good stuff, or did they also report the harsh and embarrassing?
The criterion of embarassment, while an outstanding text critical tool for determining authentic readings, is of little historical value.
CX is offline  
Old 08-02-2003, 11:28 AM   #134
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Question lunatic, liar, Lord .... or legend?

CX, sorry for the late response, I've been busy. You answered my questionaire and so I suppose you'd align yourself to some degree with the Jesus-myth group? Many here do just that. Resultantly, I've been given leads by others to consult Joseph Campbell, Acharya S, G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty and crew. I went over to jesuspuzzle and viewed Doherty's "Challenging the Verdict", the first chapter. Conversely, I've read Strobel's "The Case for Christ" and I wanted to see more of Doherty's "Challenging the Verdict," but it was, comparitively, an expensive book (increase supply? increase demand?). Failing the time and money, I read at length the analysis of others who bought and read "Challenging the Verdict." Overwhelmingly, I found the following snippet of the most recent review at Amazon.com to be the quintessential verdict on the "Verdict":

"...It gets tedious very quickly to read the author's "challenges" without knowing how the scholars would answer him. It's like putting a witness on a witness stand, gagging his mouth, then grilling him with misleading questions and saying, "Aha! See! I'm obviously right because he has no answer." Give me a break! These scholars would roast him. Check out the author's bio; his credentials pale in comparison to the doctorates earned by those he cynically seeks to discredit..."

I have to admit, when I read the first chapter of "Challenging the Verdict," quickly grasping the premise, my mind flew to the Simpsons episode where Homer is accused of sexual harassment and takes his case to "Rock Bottom," who's production crew "creatively edits" Homer's statements of fact into a confession of guilt and even a (comical) aggravated assault on the the "Rock Bottom" interviewer. Intrigued by the typical layman review of "Challenging the Verdict" I looked for the apologist response and already found informed dissention with promises of more to come. In fact, I wanted to give you and others here an opportunity to respond to these extended book reviews/analysis here, here and this general critique of Jesus-mythology, if you are so inclined. There are other critiques but I judged these as accessible to anyone.

So, I was discouraged, hoping to find the skeptic's "best shot" at adding "legend" to C.S. Lewis' famous trilemma of Jesus Christ as either lunatic, liar or Lord. I'm sure Lewis would be mildly flattered to know there has been such a need and subsequent effort to add "legend" to the conundrum he worded so artfully. Thus, I hope to solicit what you really consider the true "best shot" from this recent movement to add "legend" to the list, since Earl is evidently not it.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 12:13 AM   #135
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
Default

Billy Graham is cool, you are aware that there is a significant difference between "legend based on fact" and plain old "legend," yes?

While there certainly were poeple named "Jesus" in the region and it's certainly possible (even plausible) that one of those named "Jesus" was a Rabbi who may have been crucified for seditionist acts against the occupying force in the region (beside murder, the primary reason Romans used such a method of capital punishment), these "facts" do not then corroborate the claims of divinity ascribed to this possible Rabbi.

Do you understand the distinction?

Abbie Hoffman factually existed (i.e., he was non-fictional), yet if I were to form a cult of Abbie and write stories about how Abbie was so righteous in his opposition to evil forces that he once walked on water to escape the Feds; or that while hiding out to avoid prosecution from the evil Federal overlords, he turned water into wine and stones into brisket sandwhiches to feed those who harbored him; or that one time he was actually totally surrounded by the Feds and in front of a hundred witnesses (myself included) levitated ten feet into the air and dissappeared in a puff of marijuana smoke; and that I concluded in my writings that these miracles prove his supernatural divinity, and then others in the cult I formed later wrote their own "attestations" (based primarily upon my own writings) of these events, also concluding that Abbie was the Messiah, would all of that make Abbie Hoffman the man, Abbie the Christ?

Would an analysis of the "Historical Abbie" then be about the claims of divinity (as written by members of the cult of Abbie) or the actual man?
Koyaanisqatsi is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 10:57 AM   #136
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Question Jesus and His failed coup d'état?

Koyaanisqatsi,

Quote:
Billy Graham is cool, you are aware that there is a significant difference between "legend based on fact" and plain old "legend," yes?
Most definitely. As are the world's most respected Bible scholars. The exact reasoning for which the overwhelming majority of professional scholars hesitate to even begin to take the claims of G.A Wells (e.g. retired Professor of German) and crew seriously. You are aware of the obscurity that the Jesus-mythologizers are to the erudite minds to be found in the relevant academic circles (Classical History, Biblical Studies etc.), no?

If, in response, you claim "appeal to authority" is a bad argument, then you are missing my point.

Quote:
While there certainly were poeple named "Jesus" in the region and it's certainly possible (even plausible) that one of those named "Jesus" was a Rabbi who may have been crucified for seditionist acts against the occupying force in the region (beside murder, the primary reason Romans used such a method of capital punishment), these "facts" do not then corroborate the claims of divinity ascribed to this possible Rabbi.
I believe I am recognizing your inference, based upon which I ask: what evidence can you find that the Jesus of History was actually a political revolutionary? Wouldn't such a teacher's teachings be full of riotous incitement and the like? Ever read any of V.I. Lenin's writings (e.g. "What Must Be Done")? If so, did you notice a prevalence of political thought? In history, any explanation may be possible but only one explanation is most plausible.

Hint: Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.

Quote:
Do you understand the distinction?
Most definitely. Relatively speaking, for a layman, I'm well studied in ancient history and the tangential disciplines, so you'll have a tough sell ahead of you if you wish to convince me away from the most respected, critically examined IDs of Jesus Christ. You are welcome to an attempt however.

Quote:
Abbie Hoffman factually existed (i.e., he was non-fictional), yet if I were to form a cult of Abbie and write stories about how Abbie was so righteous in his opposition to evil forces that he once walked on water to escape the Feds; or that while hiding out to avoid prosecution from the evil Federal overlords, he turned water into wine and stones into brisket sandwhiches to feed those who harbored him; or that one time he was actually totally surrounded by the Feds and in front of a hundred witnesses (myself included) levitated ten feet into the air and dissappeared in a puff of marijuana smoke; and that I concluded in my writings that these miracles prove his supernatural divinity, and then others in the cult I formed later wrote their own "attestations" (based primarily upon my own writings) of these events, also concluding that Abbie was the Messiah, would all of that make Abbie Hoffman the man, Abbie the Christ?
Interesting analogy. Among some of the less-informed premises I quickly noted is that you'd have to show that Jesus was crucified by the Romans for acts of sedition or some such. We'll get to the other problematic premises another time since you'll have your hands full with the aforementioned in the meantime. Best of luck.

On an aside, I've had multiple appeals from others to present a case for the Resurrection of Christ, a topic somewhat correlated to the issue above. I'll try to remember to let you know when I post to BC&H since you may be inclined to get yourself involved. If I forget to notify you, just check back at BC&H the next few days for a running thread on the Resurrection.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 02:58 PM   #137
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: secularcafe.org
Posts: 9,525
Exclamation

BGiC, and all, please continue this in BC&H- if you'd like to have some of this moved to that forum, let me know what posts you would like me to move. Jobar.
Jobar is offline  
Old 08-04-2003, 03:02 PM   #138
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Carlsbad, CA
Posts: 1,881
Thumbs up But of course

Certainly Jobar, as intended I will--and as suggested by you. You are also welcome to join, your opinion is always well received.

Regards,
BGic
Cross Examiner is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 09:10 AM   #139
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default Re: lunatic, liar, Lord .... or legend?

Quote:
Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
So, I was discouraged, hoping to find the skeptic's "best shot" at adding "legend" to C.S. Lewis' famous trilemma of Jesus Christ as either lunatic, liar or Lord. I'm sure Lewis would be mildly flattered to know there has been such a need and subsequent effort to add "legend" to the conundrum he worded so artfully. Thus, I hope to solicit what you really consider the true "best shot" from this recent movement to add "legend" to the list, since Earl is evidently not it.

Regards,
BGic
Hmmm...I don't believe I identified myself as a mythicist. Certainly the majority of scholars in the Jesus Seminar are not mythicists so you're rebutting an argument I haven't made. In any case I am probably an HJ agnostic leaning toward there having been an actual historical figrue behind the gospel Narratives.

That being said your "legend" idea is a misrepresentation of my position. It is not a question of whether the Jesus stories in the NT are legendary or not. Rather what is overlooked by Lewis and others who use some variation of the trilemma as an apologetic tool is the basis and quantity of evidence for our picture of Jesus. This is totally independent of the hypothesis that Jesus is entirely mythical a la Doherty et al. (Which arguments, incidentally, I don't find especially convincing).

Ultimately there are virtually no details about the HJ's life and ministry outside the gospels. The Pauline and Catholic epistles concern themselves with confessional, doctrinal and church heirarchy issues and say little or nothing about the life of Jesus. Extra-biblical sources, authentic or not, say even less.

Consequently, the only sources we have on which to base our conclusions about Jesus pursuant to the Lord, Liar Lunatic trilemma come from the 4 canonical gospels at least vis-a-vis the orthodox picture of Jesus; there are numerous noncanonical gospels with different depictions.

So then what do we have in the gospels. We have four anonymous documents given their authorial attributions no earlier than the 2nd century by orthdox ante-nicene fathers who were combating competing traditions. Of those the 3 synoptic gospels are literarily interdependent and give multiple lines of evidence as not being eyewitness accounts. But rather a developing body of theological tractate one built upon another with specific theological aims.

Compounding this difficulty is the current state of the manuscript evidence for the NT as a whole. If you search on manuscript evidence here you can find any number of past discussions on this topic, but in a nutshell we have no complete copy of any gospel until the 4th century after the adoption of the orthodox Xian church as the religion of the Roman Empire by Constantine. Furthermore there are no fewer than 6 or 7 books of the NT (mostly the catholic letters some of the pastorals) which have no attestation whatever before Codex Sinaiticus

Now then do I think any of this disproves Xianity? No. Is it the basis for my nonbelief in god? No. But it does lead any reasonable person to conclude that reconstructing the historical Jesus in absence of a particular confessional stance predisposing one to a particular image of Jesus is extremely difficult and must be extremely tentative. Therein is the chief flaw in Lewis' apologetic trilemma. It overlooks this entire state of affairs completely and is in fact predicated entirely on the false belief that we have a complete and historically accurate and unassailable picture of the historical Jesus to begin with.
CX is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 09:22 AM   #140
CX
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
Default Hey EoG Mods

Could one of you fine lads move the series of posts between BGiC and myself regarding C.S. Lewis' Lord,Liar or Lunatic trilemma over to B,C&H. I don't want to clutter up your forum with off topic discussion

Thanks
CX is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:17 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.