Merged Topic - Historical Reliability of the Gospels

Started by Randy Carson, November 27, 2015, 11:31:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Your response is from the domain of theology and rhetoric ... not history.  Not that there is anything wrong with that ... but almost nobody here will listen to arguments of that type.

In thinking, we have underlying assumptions, that we are either aware of or not.  Most theological rhetoric (apologetics in particular) involves not exposing the underlying assumptions ... sort of jumping into the middle and proceeding from there.  There are unvoiced and even unexamined assumptions galore.  Let me make a simplifying argument ...

We find a short story.  The protagonist in the story is claimed to have performed miracles and to have been G-d is some monotheistic sense.  If this story was about Mithras rather than Jesus, would you find it plausible?  If not, why not?  This was all argued before by the pre-Nicene Church Fathers ... but why should I agree with them, since they never knew this god-man face to face?  As a person aware of how things are now, and one that isn't overly tied to science ... I would say that this story is ... just a story.  It may be based on real events, like Hollywood movies claim to be.  But jazzed up.  I really don't believe that Rambo really existed, and killed 1000 Vietcong with his bare hands (a nod to Samson).  There were Special Forces guys, who did gutsy things in a real war in Vietnam ... but I see no reason to worship a ginned up version of these guys.  I certainly wouldn't accept any claim they could make for themselves, or that others would make for them, that they did miracles or were G-d in some sense.  Similarly I find the Gospels to be mostly fictions, and the Book of Acts partially fiction, and the Book of Revelations entirely fiction.  There is nothing wrong with fiction, either sick fantasies or "based on real events" fictions.  We enjoy them all the time from Hollywood, but you would be viewed a pretty crazy if you liked them so much you thought they were real (unless registered as a Jedi in GB of course ;-).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PM
That's just a bunch of Horus Manure. You can read more here: http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/

However, the REASON that it's more than academic is because Jesus also claimed to be God. And He left behind some very specific instructions and teachings.

So, IF He is God, then what He had to say is anything but "academic".

But it's a big IF. What if Mohammed is right, that is, he is the last prophet, and therefore what He had to say is anything but "academic". What if ... (fill in the blank) and you can see that we are in deep trouble as to whom should we believe: Jesus, Mohammed or any of the thousands of preachers that roamed the planet and told everyone, " I'm god or I've been sent by god to tell you... blah, blah, blah..." Skepticism is not your strong suit.

Randy Carson

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 20, 2016, 06:39:29 AM
But it's a big IF. What if Mohammed is right, that is, he is the last prophet, and therefore what He had to say is anything but "academic". What if ... (fill in the blank) and you can see that we are in deep trouble as to whom should we believe: Jesus, Mohammed or any of the thousands of preachers that roamed the planet and told everyone, " I'm god or I've been sent by god to tell you... blah, blah, blah..." Skepticism is not your strong suit.

It's a HUGE if...one that is worthy of considerable investigation.

As for Mohammed, yes, he, too, would be worthy of investigation. However, Jesus claimed to be God...Mohammed did not. So, when you are prioritizing, you might want to start at the top and work your way down the list (if you ever need to go beyond Jesus).

What you'll find, IMO, is that most of the "thousands of preachers" aren't worth more than a cursory glance, so implying that there are simply too many "preachers" to be bothered with is a poor excuse for not investigating the most important one thoroughly.

Some barrels contain fish that need to be shot.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
It's a HUGE if...one that is worthy of considerable investigation.

As for Mohammed, yes, he, too, would be worthy of investigation. However, Jesus claimed to be God...Mohammed did not. So, when you are prioritizing, you might want to start at the top and work your way down the list (if you ever need to go beyond Jesus).

What you'll find, IMO, is that most of the "thousands of preachers" aren't worth more than a cursory glance, so implying that there are simply too many "preachers" to be bothered with is a poor excuse for not investigating the most important one thoroughly.



But Mohammed says that Jesus was just a prophet, and since Mohammed is the last prophet, anyone who claims to be a prophet after him is a fake. So you lose.

Randy Carson

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 08:21:44 AM
But Mohammed says that Jesus was just a prophet, and since Mohammed is the last prophet, anyone who claims to be a prophet after him is a fake. So you lose.

Are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Islam carefully?

Or is this simply freshman-level trolling that I can ignore?

Some barrels contain fish that need to be shot.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
Are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Islam carefully?

Or is this simply freshman-level trolling that I can ignore?



My trolling is no worse than yours. If there's no evidence for what Mohammed said is true, likewise for the Gospels. Just because you happen to be born in a Christian family/environment and you were brainwashed with christian beliefs, it doesn't make your religion better than Islam, or any other religion for that matter.

Mike Cl

Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2016, 09:10:39 AM
My trolling is no worse than yours. If there's no evidence for what Mohammed said is true, likewise for the Gospels. Just because you happen to be born in a Christian family/environment and you were brainwashed with christian beliefs, it doesn't make your religion better than Islam, or any other religion for that matter.
It really is a matter of geography and not of 'truth'.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:53:35 AM
Are you saying this because you have examined the evidence for Islam carefully?
He's saying it because there is as much evidence for Islam as there is for Christianity. Actually, there's more evidence, because Mohammed's existence is properly documented.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Baruch

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 24, 2016, 08:10:44 AM
It's a HUGE if...one that is worthy of considerable investigation.

As for Mohammed, yes, he, too, would be worthy of investigation. However, Jesus claimed to be God...Mohammed did not. So, when you are prioritizing, you might want to start at the top and work your way down the list (if you ever need to go beyond Jesus).

What you'll find, IMO, is that most of the "thousands of preachers" aren't worth more than a cursory glance, so implying that there are simply too many "preachers" to be bothered with is a poor excuse for not investigating the most important one thoroughly.



In so far as Jesus claimed to be G-d ... that is a strike against him.  And this is confused by the question of Trinity metaphysics.

Important?  Without Moses there is no Jesus either, or Muhammad.  Not everyone has the time or inclination to do an exhaustive investigation.  I was fortunate enough to have done so ... but since I am anti-authoritarian ... don't take my word for it.

As a character in a story, arguably the Jesus character is the most important in Western history, because of the Roman Empire adopting a form of that religion, as the State religion (actually under Emperor Theodosius not Emperor Constantine).  It was also under Emperor Theodosius, that much of the remaining Christology controversies were worked out.  But Medieval Christianity wouldn't have been what it was, without the positive/negative interaction with Islam in particular ... and to a lesser degree Judaism.  The family of Abrahamic religions continues to be a squabbling family ;-)  Though not much discussed here, the advent of monotheism (with fits and starts not all Abrahamic) over polytheism was a major change in the psychology and sociology of religion.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

#54
Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PM
That's just a bunch of Horus Manure. You can read more here: http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/10/25/horus-manure-debunking-the-jesushorus-connection/
Irrelevant. The relevant point was that dying-and-rising gods were in vogue, not that there was a specific connection to any one of them. Even if Christianity didn't draw from one (esp Horus) specifically, the idea of a dying-and-rising god would be out there in the ecosystem.

I also never mentioned the Horus cult at all, so congrats on a strawman well constructed.

Quote from: Randy Carson on February 19, 2016, 07:36:04 PM
However, the REASON that it's more than academic is because Jesus also claimed to be God. And He left behind some very specific instructions and teachings.

So, IF He is God, then what He had to say is anything but "academic".
Jesus was actually very evasive on that point. Any claims that he was god came from other people. Also, his teachings are kind of meh â€" either outdated by now, or obvious stuff every society got.

Also, if he claimed he was god, then it would be just that, a claim. A claim does nothing to establish the credentials of his godhead. Also, if that was part of his mythicization, then it's still stuff added on later.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

The Horus connection became important much later ... when the Virgin Mary was assimilated to Isis (the goddess) and her son Horus was a natural fit.  St Cyril of Alexandria was responsible for pushing this, circa 400 CE.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

LittleNipper

The Gospels were clearly written by men who had no thought of making themselves look heroic.

widdershins

So, am I to take it we've given up on trying to rewrite the history of the gospels so that the OP is in a much better position for whatever secret argument he could not make until we all agreed that Jesus had a personal hand in writing them and have moved on to arguments unrelated to the original post?  Because I have yet to see Randy finally either accept that "scientific consensus" trumps "this one guy I like who wrote some books" or give a reason that is not the case, but the argument does seem to have been abandoned.
This sentence is a lie...

Mike Cl

Quote from: LittleNipper on March 01, 2016, 04:28:49 PM
The Gospels were clearly written by men who had no thought of making themselves look heroic.
What does that mean???
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

LittleNipper

Quote from: Mike Cl on March 01, 2016, 05:04:41 PM
What does that mean???

It simply means that if I were making up a story, I certainly wouldn't set myself up as a liar or as some frightened child. Clearly, those that penned the Gospels were not thinking of themselves and gained nothing.