|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2021 21:09:22 GMT
Even for a small target audience, that was pretty weak. Or maybe, also as your Wiki link suggests, he just got his names crossed. Something about Pharaoh and Moses. At any rate, your contention is that it never happened therefore it was false advertising? It hooked didn’t it. Because here we are debating an event that has zero evidence of ever happening. I suspect the average Christian who would not have lived in Judea, but in Asia Minor and Italy by the time Matthew’s Gospel was written, was less picky about the historical details. And it is possible no one back then was expected to believe it as historical fact, but read them as the literary allusions to the Old Testament they actually are. Again, Bible inerrancy, or Bible is literal truth, is a modern concept thought up in 19th century to combat biblical higher criticism and Darwinism. The Neoplatonist Christian St Augustine himself was sanguine on the subject. That's quite a reach you have there, Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2021 21:46:00 GMT
That's quite a reach you have there, Paul. No. I’m not reaching for anything. The reach is using only one non-eyewitness, secondary source recorded some 60 years after the event as proof for an historical event having happened. Add in we do not know the original intent of the gospel writer and whether the audience it was intended for would have taken it literally or figuratively. We assume it is meant literally, but this is from our modern perspective. That the event is not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament, let alone elsewhere in the historical record, is suspect that it was not something important enough for the other gospel writers add it to their narratives, if they were aware of it having happened. And perhaps they knew the information was incorrect. So, if you were asked to transfer events from the gospel as an historical fact to be taught in high school history books, would you write a paragraph that states between 4BC and 1AD King Herod the Great ordered the deaths of first born sons in the Bethlehem area after he heard men said to be magi from the east were asking around about this new King of the Jews. Ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2021 22:41:03 GMT
So, as an historian, you are willing to stake your reputation on this event is a fact? Yes or no. I've already said I'm not arguing for or against. If you want to convince me it didn't happen, you're going to need more than what you've provided thusfar because "it would have made bigger headlines" and speculating motivation that presumes a lie just ain't doin' it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2021 23:38:14 GMT
I've already said I'm not arguing for or against. If you want to convince me it didn't happen, you're going to need more than what you've provided thusfar because "it would have made bigger headlines" and speculating motivation that presumes a lie just ain't doin' it. A repost of my answer given already above. *********** THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ISN’T EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE Yes, I read that post and that statement is no more clear to me now than it was then. I mean, I certainly agree with it, but it doesn't seem to support your argument. Must you always have one foot out the door over some phantom personal issues you think I have with you? I've addressed everything you've said, so there is no need to repeat it, let alone more verbosely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 30, 2021 23:48:20 GMT
Yes, I read that post and that statement is no more clear to me now than it was then. I mean, I certainly agree with it, but it doesn't seem to support your argument. Must you always have one foot out the door over some phantom personal issues you think I have with you? I've addressed everything you've said, so there is no need to repeat it, let alone more verbosely. State what you think my argument is. Your contention is that it never happened therefore it was false advertising. Sometimes, complex arguments are built on petty issues. Don't blame me for knowing how to cut a tree down. Other times, maybe I'm not interested in the subject, but something someone said along the way gets my attention. So what.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 0:41:31 GMT
If your not interested, then why do you continue questioning me? When I say I love irony, I'm not being mean. I really do love it. Let's take a different approach. You're a fan of the so-called burden of proof, yeah? Do you think "absence of evidence" is proof that Matthew was planting a fake mustard seed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 1:46:11 GMT
When I say I love irony, I'm not being mean. I really do love it. Let's take a different approach. You're a fan of the so-called burden of proof, yeah? Do you think "absence of evidence" is proof that Matthew was planting a fake mustard seed? Lack of evidence renders the original claim as weak, hearsay evidence. This weakness could be due to several factors that I’ve gone over. As I have said, the massacre event being planted information is a real possibly if you take the time to watch the documentary. It’s free on YouTube. Just click here. As such I can’t repeat their thesis here as it takes time to build their case. Does it give plausible explanations as to why they may be wrong? If you don't know if two plus two is four or five, employ Occam's Razor as you read a 400-page dissertation advocating the latter. I'll admit that I oversimplify things sometimes, but if it takes two hours to say it never happened therefore it was false advertising, SWIM should admit when things are over-complicated. I understand there may be a larger context here, so I might skim the video later, but if this is where we're at, I'll thank you for the referral and be on my way. Is that because there are no secular confirmations of many major events that ocurred in the Bible? From what I understand, there aren't even any for the Crucifixion. Does that mean all documented testimonies are from a "POV of faith"? At the risk of being called petty again, what exactly is that, anyway? What does it mean to have a point of view of faith? Considering the bookends of that paragraph, is your problem with the people or the religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 2:51:33 GMT
Does it give plausible explanations as to why they may be wrong? If you don't know if two plus two is four or five, employ Occam's Razor as you read a 400-page dissertation advocating the latter. I'll admit that I oversimplify things sometimes, but if it takes two hours to say it never happened therefore it was false advertising, SWIM should admit when things are over-complicated. I understand there may be a larger context here, so I might skim the video later, but if this is where we're at, I'll thank you for the referral and be on my way. Is that because there are no secular confirmations of many major events that ocurred in the Bible? From what I understand, there aren't even any for the Crucifixion. Does that mean all documented testimonies are from a "POV of faith"? At the risk of being called petty again, what exactly is that, anyway? What does it mean to have a point of view of faith? Considering the bookends of that paragraph, is your problem with the people or the religion? Saying something is X is not True is not the same as saying X might not be True. Do you see the difference here? Indeed I do, but I don't see the difference between saying X might not be true and saying X might be true. So far, I haven't gotten the impression that you're on the fence. Depends on how deep you want to go. I agree that faith and knowledge are not the same thing, but there's something to be said for what we think we know. At any rate, I still don't understand what a "POV of faith" is, exactly. Are you talking about bias and/or credulity? Did I miss something the first time? There you go again, presuming way too much and getting personal because of it. I don't have a "religious faith," and I don't believe people can be evil. I've read what you've written; please don't read what I haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 4:00:10 GMT
Indeed I do, but I don't see the difference between saying X might not be true and saying X might be true. So far, I haven't gotten the impression that you're on the fence. Depends on how deep you want to go. I agree that faith and knowledge are not the same thing, but there's something to be said for what we think we know. At any rate, I still don't understand what a "POV of faith" is, exactly. Are you talking about bias and/or credulity? Did I miss something the first time? There you go again, presuming way too much and getting personal because of it. I don't have a "religious faith," and I don't believe people can be evil. I've read what you've written; please don't read what I haven't. I’m not on a fence historically speaking. I look at the Bible as I would any other document and study it in the context of other similar documents, archeology, the culture it was created within, etc. I do not think the Bible is a direct recording of what God, if there is one, thinks. That’s Islam’s schtick. If you ask me does the Bible contain moral teachings, I answer absolutely. The ancient Hebrews built a righteous, moral society based on their faith in their myths and it worked for them. Then Jesus comes along and pushes the boundaries saying it is not enough to be righteous and moral, you need love for there to be true justice. That to me is the Jesus story distilled to its basic concept. One thing about the Hebrews is they were fantastic writers and they knew it. This was their great art. The Greeks had the Parthenon and the Jews had their Books. If what you get out of it is real, it doesn't matter whether or not it's fiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 5:46:17 GMT
If what you get out of it is real, it doesn't matter whether or not it's fiction. I have no problem with that. I explore spirituality on my own; what I try not let myself do is claim my particular beliefs should be shoved onto others. Who does? There's always someone being accused of "shoving religion down peoples' throats," but I've never actually seen it. However, what I have seen time and time again are people being asked about their beliefs then being accused of proselytizing for answering. I'm 10 minutes into the video, by the way. All good so far. edit: Around 15:15, Reilly said when Jesus was brought before Pilate, he was being accused of claiming to be the Messiah, which is true to the story. But then he follows that up with, "In other words, he's claiming to be the Messiah." He may as well say OJ was claiming to be the killer by being accused of it. Maybe it was just a bad edit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Mar 31, 2021 14:38:29 GMT
Well, the lack of evidence for a historical figure IS the evidence for the probability of a composite. That doesn't actually follow. And you will need to account for some of the evidence that is not "lacking" and which doesn't fit this "composite" idea at all. Paul talks about meeting Jesus' brother in Gal 1:18-19. This was within 20 years of Jesus' death. So how do you account for this in your "composite" idea? Ditto for Josephus' direct testimony to the 63 AD execution of the same brother of Jesus - James - in AJ XX.200. Josephus was a younger contemporary of James, the execution was in the same small city in which Josephus lived at the time and the killing of James triggered a political upheaval that would have affected Josephus personally. Yet he is quite clear that this James was "brother of that Jesus who was called 'Messiah'". Guess who. None of this makes any sense if Jesus was some amorphous "composite". Both these references have him as a very recent single human being, with a known human brother. Now you're making another claim completely. What make you think he was an Essene? If he was an Essene or something "very similar", why do none of the narratives about his life depict him as one or as something like one? Why would they excise this element? See above. Not as "scant" as you're making out and definitely not as "scant" as your original claim of "most probably" requires. Arthur, as it happens, is a composite. We can see this from the way his legends have absorbed ones about other figures, such as Macsen Wledig/Magnus Maximus. But given that we have no narrative accounts of Arthur for about 700 years after his supposed life, there was plenty of time for this composite figure to develop. You need to explain how the same thing could happen in just 20 years, given when Paul was writing about Jesus as an individual. Can you do this? You are wrong. No scholar holds this "composite" view. That's a Dan Brown level of total nonsense. And that's a complete myth that two seconds on Google will show you is nonsense. The canon of the Bible was not selected at Nicea. If that's the level of crackpot "knowledge" you're working from, no wonder you're so confused. I don't think you can use anything out of the bible as "proof" as the whole construct was to create a Church and surrounding mythology. Certainly if Jesus did exist he would consider Paul's actions as blasphemous as they took away from his "Jewishness" and set up a separate "Pauline" version of his teachings I have no intention of arguing with you, if you wish to believe in a historical figure than fine, I would not wish to do anything to damage your "faith". I was viewing it purely from a historical evidence point of view, of which there is pretty much no archaeological supporting documentary evidence that isn't questionable due to being from "interested parties" and of New Testament origin. Best wishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 31, 2021 18:15:07 GMT
That doesn't actually follow. And you will need to account for some of the evidence that is not "lacking" and which doesn't fit this "composite" idea at all. Paul talks about meeting Jesus' brother in Gal 1:18-19. This was within 20 years of Jesus' death. So how do you account for this in your "composite" idea? Ditto for Josephus' direct testimony to the 63 AD execution of the same brother of Jesus - James - in AJ XX.200. Josephus was a younger contemporary of James, the execution was in the same small city in which Josephus lived at the time and the killing of James triggered a political upheaval that would have affected Josephus personally. Yet he is quite clear that this James was "brother of that Jesus who was called 'Messiah'". Guess who. None of this makes any sense if Jesus was some amorphous "composite". Both these references have him as a very recent single human being, with a known human brother. Now you're making another claim completely. What make you think he was an Essene? If he was an Essene or something "very similar", why do none of the narratives about his life depict him as one or as something like one? Why would they excise this element? See above. Not as "scant" as you're making out and definitely not as "scant" as your original claim of "most probably" requires. Arthur, as it happens, is a composite. We can see this from the way his legends have absorbed ones about other figures, such as Macsen Wledig/Magnus Maximus. But given that we have no narrative accounts of Arthur for about 700 years after his supposed life, there was plenty of time for this composite figure to develop. You need to explain how the same thing could happen in just 20 years, given when Paul was writing about Jesus as an individual. Can you do this? You are wrong. No scholar holds this "composite" view. That's a Dan Brown level of total nonsense. And that's a complete myth that two seconds on Google will show you is nonsense. The canon of the Bible was not selected at Nicea. If that's the level of crackpot "knowledge" you're working from, no wonder you're so confused. I don't think you can use anything out of the bible as "proof" as the whole construct was to create a Church and surrounding mythology. Certainly if Jesus did exist he would consider Paul's actions as blasphemous as they took away from his "Jewishness" and set up a separate "Pauline" version of his teachings I have no intention of arguing with you, if you wish to believe in a historical figure than fine, I would not wish to do anything to damage your "faith". I was viewing it purely from a historical evidence point of view, of which there is pretty much no archaeological supporting documentary evidence that isn't questionable due to being from "interested parties" and of New Testament origin. Best wishes. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. |
|
timoneill
New Member
@timoneill
Posts: 19
Likes: 21
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 31, 2021 19:08:11 GMT
I don't think you can use anything out of the bible as "proof" as the whole construct was to create a Church and surrounding mythology. Luckily for me I'm not using any of the ancient texts that, much later, became part of "the Bible" as "proof" and never use the word "proof" in relation to any of this. What I'm doing is what historians do with any ancient textual material: I'm examining it critically to see what it can tell us about what its writer believed and so what it may indicate about how those beliefs arose or what they reflect. To claim that I somehow "can't" examine these texts in this way to work out what they mean is absurd. This is clearly the logical way to proceed if we want to understand what beliefs these texts reflect and how they likely arose. On the contrary, modern scholars have totally rejected this old fashioned reading of Paul and note in detail exactly how completely Jewish all of his ideas are. They fit perfectly with the Jewish traditions of the time. How kind of you. it's nothing like "faith". My position is a rational, evidence-based conclusion working from 35 years study of the relevant material and leading scholarship. I'm more than open to the idea he may not have existed, but simply find the arguments for that position strained, contrived and completely unconvincing. And I can explain exactly why in great detail. So this is not "faith'. It's reason. No, that's what I'm doing. You are viewing it via some garbled fringe arguments that are rejected by critical scholars. "No archaeological supporting documentary evidence that isn't questionable" pretty much sums up what we have for about 90% of ancient figures. Welcome to ancient history. I consistently find that people who say their doubts about the likely existence of a historical Jesus are because of this nature of the evidence have little or no grasp that this is the normal state of affairs when it comes to ancient history. I also usually find that, despite their protestations, they don't care much about history at all and just want to cling to an emotional attachment to a half-baked idea that he didn't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Mar 31, 2021 19:33:10 GMT
I don't think you can use anything out of the bible as "proof" as the whole construct was to create a Church and surrounding mythology. Certainly if Jesus did exist he would consider Paul's actions as blasphemous as they took away from his "Jewishness" and set up a separate "Pauline" version of his teachings I have no intention of arguing with you, if you wish to believe in a historical figure than fine, I would not wish to do anything to damage your "faith". I was viewing it purely from a historical evidence point of view, of which there is pretty much no archaeological supporting documentary evidence that isn't questionable due to being from "interested parties" and of New Testament origin. Best wishes. You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Okay.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Mar 31, 2021 19:43:55 GMT
I don't think you can use anything out of the bible as "proof" as the whole construct was to create a Church and surrounding mythology. Luckily for me I'm not using any of the ancient texts that, much later, became part of "the Bible" as "proof" and never use the word "proof" in relation to any of this. What I'm doing is what historians do with any ancient textual material: I'm examining it critically to see what it can tell us about what its writer believed and so what it may indicate about how those beliefs arose or what they reflect. To claim that I somehow "can't" examine these texts in this way to work out what they mean is absurd. This is clearly the logical way to proceed if we want to understand what beliefs these texts reflect and how they likely arose. On the contrary, modern scholars have totally rejected this old fashioned reading of Paul and note in detail exactly how completely Jewish all of his ideas are. They fit perfectly with the Jewish traditions of the time. How kind of you. it's nothing like "faith". My position is a rational, evidence-based conclusion working from 35 years study of the relevant material and leading scholarship. I'm more than open to the idea he may not have existed, but simply find the arguments for that position strained, contrived and completely unconvincing. And I can explain exactly why in great detail. So this is not "faith'. It's reason. No, that's what I'm doing. You are viewing it via some garbled fringe arguments that are rejected by critical scholars. "No archaeological supporting documentary evidence that isn't questionable" pretty much sums up what we have for about 90% of ancient figures. Welcome to ancient history. I consistently find that people who say their doubts about the likely existence of a historical Jesus are because of this nature of the evidence have little or no grasp that this is the normal state of affairs when it comes to ancient history. I also usually find that, despite their protestations, they don't care much about history at all and just want to cling to an emotional attachment to a half-baked idea that he didn't exist. If your faith is as needy and shakey as your replies indicate, then perhaps message boards are not the best place for you. If you wish people to prove a negative to make you feel better then that rather diminishes the "faith" aspect of your religion. Oh, and there is plenty of evidence for people going back over a milennia and a half before Christ which you'd be well aware of had you studied ancient history. Read Karen Armstrong's "The Great Transformation" as an example which gives a decent light account of the 2000 years of pre Christian civilisations and the birth of various religious thought.
|
|
timoneill
New Member
@timoneill
Posts: 19
Likes: 21
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 31, 2021 20:13:45 GMT
If your faith is as needy and shakey as your replies indicate, then perhaps message boards are not the best place for you. A stupid comment. I have no "faith", my position is based on decades of careful reading and research, it's supported by virtually all critical NON-Christian scholars and so it is not "needy" or "shakey". Saying these silly things to me is not going to get you anywhere and you aren't going to fool anyone into thinking you're making valid points. What "religion"? I'm an atheist. Yes, there is. For some people. Mainly prominent people. But for everyone else - i.e. for most ancient figures - our evidence is actually pretty scanty. As I said. Try this: compare the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for any of the other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets and Messianic claimants we know of. See if it is more extensive for them than it is for Jesus. Then maybe you'll start to understand what I'm saying. I've read it. What's that got to do with anything I've said? See above. If you can't follow the arguments being presented, perhaps you should bow out now. You seem to be struggling to keep up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 21:19:26 GMT
Who does? There's always someone being accused of "shoving religion down peoples' throats," but I've never actually seen it. However, what I have seen time and time again are people being asked about their beliefs then being accused of proselytizing for answering. I'm 10 minutes into the video, by the way. All good so far. edit: Around 15:15, Reilly said when Jesus was brought before Pilate, he was being accused of claiming to be the Messiah, which is true to the story. But then he follows that up with, "In other words, he's claiming to be the Messiah." He may as well say OJ was claiming to be the killer by being accused of it. Maybe it was just a bad edit. How is that bad edit. Claiming to be the King of Jews is saying he is the Messiah. An accusation is not an admission. There you go again. How about instead you answer the question: Is your problem with the people or the religion? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 21:30:46 GMT
We never get a sense of his actual humanity except toward the end during his crucifixion. And when he's flipping tables.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 21:57:36 GMT
An accusation is not an admission. There you go again. How about instead you answer the question: Is your problem with the people or the religion? The problem is the people who have taken a religion and use it as a weapon. And if I critique religion for its “sins,” then I’m assigned as the demonic force out to destroy the church it warns its faithful about. You cannot deny Christianity’s very long list of causalities left in its wake. And what the fuck is going on with so many millions of otherwise good Christians supporting the hatred of a man like Trump? So, no, no, no, I do not hate Christians or Christianity. But I do not like moral and religion supremacy of any kind. Then why blame the religion? And are you not claiming moral superiority over those with whom you have this problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2021 21:59:32 GMT
And when he's flipping tables. He’s the god-hero of the story. Jesus of the Gospels is never seen as a human being because remember he’s born a God. It’s right there upfront in Luke and Matthew. He also demonstrated his 'actual humanity' when he flipped that table. Because apparently humanity only rears its ugly head in the form of betrayal and anger.
|
|
