|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scriptural evidence that Jesus is Messiah: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Presumably "a conservative estimate" means "an estimate made by conservative Christians". Because I doubt that you would get a number that high counting definite Messianic prophecies. Have you actually checked any of these yourself ? Carefully read them in context ? Investigated further rather than just assuming that the NT accounts are true ? For instance, to start with your first example:
quote: The child of Isaiah 7 is to be born to show that the attacks from Israel and Aram will continue for only a few more years (Isaiah 7:16). Jesus is born a few hundred years too late for that. Even the "virgin" birth is based on a dubious translation - and nobody claims a virgin birth at the right time, the reign of Ahaz. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Of course the problem is that even you assume that the Bible is more accurate than is warranted by even a simple internal analysis.
In Message 15 you use words supposedly said by Jesus in his post-resurrection appearance on the road to Emmaus. But in this post you state that after the Crucifixion the Disciples:
...have just gone back to their fishing
and in doing so you implicitly deny the whole Road to Emmaus story, which is founded on the assumption that the Disciples stayed in Jerusalem until the Ascension. If the story of the road to Emmaus is a fiction, how can we trust it to accurately convey Jesus' words ? In fact if the post-Resurrection accounts differ so markedly, how can we trust any of them ? It seems obvious to me that we have two traditions of post-resurrection accounts - the first based in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem, and that these two stories were in competition, each denying the other. But how could that happen if the actual events were so impressive ? If Luke is right, then how could the author of Matthew not know about Pentecost ? If Matthew is right, why would the author of Luke be so insistent in setting the events in and around Jerusalem ? Surely, the correct answer is that neither is right. The original events must have been far less impressive to be so heavily buried by the time of the Gospel writers. And this throws doubt on the whole idea of a bodily resurrection. If the original events were so unimpressive that they were effectively lost by the time of the Gospel writers, how can we suppose that the original "appearances" were not mundane events ? Dreams, the feeling of Jesus' presence, maybe "sightings", like the sightings of Elvis Presley after his death ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: We know about the shared sources and/or copying between the synoptic Gospels so we aren;t dealing with differing eyewitness accounts, and we should expect fewer and smaller differences. In fact we seem to have a whole different set of accidents !
quote: And according to Acts 1 it seems that they had been talking to Jesus there, so it doesn't seem to be against the command they were given. Especially as Olivet is only just outside old Jerusalem (and IN modern Jerusalem). That's very different from a the journey out to Galilee, which is not even hinted at in either Luke or Acts.
quote: Which does not change the possibility that the story as we have it is exaggerated or even complete fiction. I would say that the fact that Matthew shows no sign that it happened at all and implies that it did not is far more significant.
quote: Luke has them take a short trip outside the city walls, and with orders to remain in Jerusalem which would rule out much longer trips like a journey to Galilee. Which really makes my point - the difference between you and the inerrantists is one of degree, rather than kind.
quote: It seems to me that my explanation involves no great implausibilities. You're going to have to do better than mere assertion - even Buz can manage that much.
quote: That isn't part of my explanation, so that isn't a problem.
quote: Apparently he had a vision, which was enough to convince him. He doesn't seem to know about the Gospel stories of the post-resurrection appearances, just that there were appearances which he considers on a par with his vision.
quote: If they were worried about it, and if they could find it, and if it would still be recognisable and if the disciples were preaching about a missing body (and we don't even know THAT much - Paul doesn't mention it).... That's a lot of 'if's'.
quote: If you have examples from less doubtful passages, then maybe you should have chosen that rather than an event only mentioned in Luke, and which Matthew implicitly denies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Of course copying is pretty much equivalent to collusion, and the individual events are pretty much equivalent to an accident. So what you are saying is that the Gospels are far less reliable than eye-witness accounts of an accident, and even the similarities may be due only to copying.
quote: It isn't the "sequence of events" it is the events themselves. And yes, if you are going to quote details of the events as evidence of what Jesus actually believed about himself it does matter if your sources are horribly unreliable.
quote: However, we find that Matthew has a completely different story from Luke, so different that one must be badly wrong. This cannot be explained simply be different but accurate sources.
quote: Of course that isn't true. The inerrantists only say that to insist on the inerrancy doctrine - the vast majority are like you - they make up excuses to sweep the errors under the carpet. I am not proposing that a slight error makes the whole thing unreliable - indeed I am not saying that they are more unreliable than you are ! But given unreliable sources I take the best explanation of that unreliability (exaggeration really is to be expected - and the differences are so pervasive that the original story must be lost) and conclude that mundane explanations for the "appearances" are all that is required to account for the evidence. Unlike you and the inerrantists this is a rational approach to the evidence rather than one motivated by faith.
quote: My only disagreement is that I am not convinced that producing a body (which was likely impossible by the time it mattered) may not have been near enough. My point is that the actual evidence can easily be explained without invoking the supernatural, so while the disciples may well have believed in some form of resurrection we cannot rationally conclude that the resurrection actually did occur.
quote: Obviously a strong BELIEF in a resurrection is sufficient. Just as a strong BELIEF in Joseph Smith's Golden Plates and his miraculous "translation" was sufficient for the Mormons. Even though it was quite clearly a fraud. And I am not even alleging fraud on the part of the disciples - just a misinterpretation of natural events based on faith hope and a good dash of cognitive dissonance. If it had depended on the Gospel stories then we would find those stories earlier - or at least evidence of them - and we wouldn't see the major discrepancies between Luke and Matthew.
quote: By some of the "details" you mean events like the whole Road to Emmaus story and Pentecost...
quote: Perhaps you would like to back our opinion with evidence. You SAY that the history is important but then you ALSO say that pretty much all of it is unimportant details that are bound to be wrong anyway. So it seems that the parts we are discussing CAN'T be the basis of the belief, and can't even be important to the belief in the resurrection.
quote: So therefore the fact that he shows no knowledge of the Empty Tomb, or the details of the post-resurrection appearances is pretty good evidence that none of them were that important at the time of his conversion...
quote: And the first of your additional quotes is attributed to John, not Jesus... Which leaves only one quote. Form a source you regard as horribly unreliable. That's not very good evidence, is it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: When it is clear that the differences are greater than between eye-witness accounts of an accident, and that we are dealing with written accounts based on common sources - sections of which are largely copied into the text - I don't see what other conclusion can come to
quote: We don't have the same events in a different sequence, we have different events.
quote: Which requires a horrid mix of assuming unreliability to support an assumption of reliability.... It's apologetics, not rational evaluation of the evidence.
quote: Except that no conspiracy is require. And the differences between the Gospels already tell us that there any refutations WERE ignored.
quote: I'm not proposing any conspiracy at all. This is just a nonsensical strawman. The differences between the Gospels exist. I propose that the differences are the product of differing narrative tendencies developing over time. You might as well say that urban legends require a conspiracy to explain.
quote: But that is not true. You need to look not at the beliefs of those who died, but the beliefs of those who follow them. How they dealt with the deaths. You haven't even begun to make a case.
quote: And maybe that is because the Maccabees were a military movement while the early Christian were less so - although the Gospels are a little ambiguous on the exact views. And the later success of Christianity is surely due to its establishment as a gentile religion, and moving away from it's Jewish roots, to the point where it would probably be unrecognisable to the Disciples.
quote: Obviously I come to the conclusion that Paul showed no knowledge of them because he showed no knowledge of them...
quote: With the exception of the Empty Tomb they don't seem to be fundamental even at the time of the Gospels, let alone Paul's time....
quote: Of course we don't know what Peter believed, so your entire argument begs the question. The Empty Tomb story doesn't show up before Mark, generally agreed to have been written after Peter's death. So we have no idea what Peter's view on that matter was at all.
quote: All of which is entirely consistent with my views....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: If you want to compare the Gospel stories to conspiracy theories, be my guest. Although saying that only the details differ is considerably understating the matter. But OK, say that there is agreement among Christians on this point by 70AD (which is the most that that evidence can get you). How does that help you?
quote: Some sort of idea of a resurrection, yes. But the evidence won't take you any further than that.
quote: That isn't what your long quote says. And the Maccabean Revolt DIDN'T fail. It established an independent Israel that was quite successful until the Romans came.
quote: I am sure that they were every bit as skeptical as the early Mormons, Scientologists, Moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the members of the Solar Temple, the followers of Heaven,s Gate..... And again, Paul doesn't preach anything about an earthly resurrection that needed to be or even could be confirmed in the letters we do have. But we do know that there were Gentiles attracted to Judaism and that Paul relaxed the requirements of the Jewish law to make the Christian sect far more appealing to such people...
quote: It is part of the story that we have NOW. We have no evidence that it was part of the resurrection story in Paul's lifetime, and reasons to suspect that it was not. Your quote gives a bare list of "appearances" with no explanation of what happened, the appearance in front of 500 is not easily identifiable with anything in the Gospels or Acts, and Paul places his own visionary experience on the list. It,s not very good evidence if anything supernatural going on.
quote: Of course you are just begging the question again and falling into circularity. You can't argue for the historicity often Empty Tomb by assuming that it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Except that it doesn't seem to be. The element of cognitive dissonance seems to be missing. Those executed don't seem to be leaders. The promised resurrection seems to be clearly physical and not satisfied by visions. So it really seems to be less than ideal... The 135AD rebellion is much better, but how do we know that there wasn't something of the sort ? We know about Christianity because it was wildly successful later on - but that was mainly because of Paul - who we know didn't have any direct knowledge of a physical resurrection - and his appeal to the Gentiles who knew even less.
quote: Indeed he must have. The problem is that WE don't know what the apostles meant when they talked about the resurrection. So you have said absolutely nothing to refute my point.
quote: Well, as we know the appearance stories differ greatly, which makes no sense if there really were impressive post-resurrection appearances. It follows then that the original stories were far less impressive. In the stories Jesus comes and goes mysteriously, which is inconsistent with simple physical survival by any means, natural or supernatural - but is consistent with the stories originating as "sightings", visions, dreams or simply the feeling of Jesus' presence. Let us also note that Jesus failed to fulfil the role expected of him, and when people who are committed to a cause run into this situation there are often die-hards who look to reinterpret and invent ways to keep to their beliefs. I would say therefore that the evidence is more consistent with entirely natural events than with a supernatural resurrection, and given the basic unlikelihood of miracles such an explanation is always to be preferred in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Since there is nothing on-topic, than I am afraid that your ignorant and fallacious assertions will have to go unanswered, unless you wish to start a new thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024