|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Phat, I know you like YouTube. Here's a short video of Bart Ehrman explaining how history is/needs to be done on the bible.
I'm not asking you to agree, he's showing how poor the evidence is for the resurrection which you're incapable of assessing rationally; I'm just asking you to try to understand the process.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Phat writes: Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers. That's why atheists look for objective evidence which is much more immune to confirmation bias. Atheists often do their best to negate their own inherent biases. Believers seem to wallow in those biases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
GDR appears to have abandoned this thread about a week ago, so I am, too.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I think GDR's the one who should watch this. Ehrman says all the things we've been telling him about history in this thread. Ehrman focuses on the resurrection, but the principles he describes apply to everything in the past, which includes all aspects of Jesus's life, including his very existence.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
He'll be back in 6 months after he deals with his crisis of faith and thinks he has another whizbang argument, that will in actuality be a retread of his same old tired argument. There will probably be new people he will not respond to, like me.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
It might just be me, but the more that discussion rolled along the more he seemed to echo creationist behavior where old arguments are endlessly recycled as if never been rebutted before.
I've pointed out countless times in creationist threads that their presentation of an old argument is never followed by, "Now I know that your response is..." and then go on to address that response. Instead they act like it had never been discussed before. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Percy
I didn't abandon it. Both my wife and myself came down with Covid and so I've been kind sidelined. I'll get back to it some today. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22393 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Sorry to hear. Hope it's a mild case. Don't rush yourself resuming participation, get your rest.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Tangle writes: This is from Dale Allison,' Studies in Matthew' and 'The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount' as used by Carrier. "Allison shows that the Sermon on the Mount fits neatly within known rabbinical debates over how Jews could still fulfil the Torah after the destruction of the Temple cult. The general consensus amongst the rabbis was that good deeds now fulfil that (the Temple's) role (especially acts of love and mercy).That is essentially what the Sermon on the Mount says." Allison says that the rabbis of the time said "Upon three things the world standeth, "upon Torah, upon Temple service and gemilut hasidim" (deeds of loving kindness). Allison says that this - "the law, the cult and social behaviour." He says that Matthew arranged the Sermon on the Mount so as to be "a Christian interpretation of the three classic pillars." Carrier adds that he does this by simply assuming that the temple cult does not exist. "At no point does Jesus [...] explain what to do about temple sacrifice code in Levitucs or Deuteronomy.[...] In other words , it assumes the temple cult has already been destroyed. Which means this speech was written after 70CE. It does not come from Jesus" Firstly he pulls the S.ot M. out of the overall context of the entire book of Matthew. Jesus riles against the Temple corruption throughout His Gospel. Why bother if it is defunct? They weren't stupid. If Matthew had been written post war they would have known it to be contrived. For sake of argument let's say I agree that Matthew assumes the Temple cult no longer exists. It makes just as much sense to argue that as Jesus was predicting the destruction of the Temple, and with that the end of the Temple cult, then why wouldn't he use that understanding that the cult no longer existed. Once again, I don't see this as being supernatural but simply a solid grasp of the direction that the political situation would take going forward. I also agree that most of the Sermon is a compilation of OT material. Jesus was forever quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
PaulK writes: Wrong on both counts. It simply predicts what the Romans will do. Daniel makes the point that it isn't just about the Jews but about all nations.
Which “predicts” how the Romans would provoke a rebellion - as well as alluding to Daniel which predicts that God would intervene to save the Jews. PaulK writes: Daniel again is not about the Jewish situation regarding the Romans but about the world.
Indeed, to show that it is not about the Romans. PaulK writes: I would point out that it indicates that Jesus would be seen doing so and that the elect would be gathered by angels. Also, Mark 13:20 indicates that God has “cut short” the tribulation to preserve the elect, indicating that the elect are alive on Earth at the time they are gathered. (And if the Tribulation is the Roman military response that would also point to divine intervention) When you go to Daniel 7 the one like a Son of Man is given dominion over an earthly Kingdom that will never be destroyed, 13:20 refers back to Deut 30:4 indicating that this Kingdom ill be drawn from all nations.
PaulK writes: No, it's more that I worded it poorly. The point is that when the Temple is destroyed, and along with it the corrupt Temple authorities, then through that they could have understand that the "Kingdom of Heaven", (Kingdom of God in other Gospels), had been established. Remember the Lord's Prayer when it says "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven".
Neither Mark nor Daniel make such a claim (indeed, the Temple is not destroyed in Daniel). That is simply your invention. PaulK writes: As I have already shown it makes perfect sense given the Jewish understanding of the End Times. (See Zechariah 14 for an example). Zechariah 14 is a prediction, (that is never fulfilled), about the nations gathering together against Jerusalem and then God coming in and redeeming it. It's not about end times.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Well you are wrong on both counts. And Daniel is rather clear that the rest of the Diadochi kingdoms will also fall.
quote: Odd then that you are replying to a comment about Mark.
quote: Which simply evades the point that divine intervention is expected. And if Daniel is followed the Elect would be Jews.
quote: And it is still the case that neither Mark or Daniel make that claim.
quote: It very much is. Compare with Daniel, and note that Daniel 8 is explicitly a prophecy of the end times (and it’s about the Maccabean revolt, too as can quite easily be worked out).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
GDR writes: Firstly he pulls the S.ot M. out of the overall context of the entire book of Matthew. The sermon on the mount is a centre piece of Matthew, given that it's three whole chapters it has its own context.
I also agree that most of the Sermon is a compilation of OT material. Jesus was forever quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. The point being made is that Jesus never gave the sermon on the mount, it's a written literary discourse composed by whoever Matthew was, around 50 years after the supposed death of Jesus. It's based around Old Testament stories. Matthew never met or heard Jesus speak, he was writing propaganda 50 years after a non-existent event. This is not a marginal opinion, it's mainstream
quote: Sermon on the Mount - WikipediaJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Percy writes: Without the gold plates Mormonism is just another failed religion. Why don't you read a lot of books about Mormonism and draw your conclusions. They'll have just as much merit as your conclusions about Jesus. If you happen to conclude, "What a bunch of malarkey!" then keep in mind the equivalence. The testimony of the resurrection is by 4 different Gospel writers, (of whom two were eyewitnesses and 2 received their information from eye witnesses as researched by Richard Bauckham), and testified to by the writers of the epistles. The book of Mormon was as an account given by 1 individual. This is from wiki.
quote: Of course it's possible that the account by the one is correct and the accounts by the several could be false but I don't see an equivalence for comparing the two.
Percy writes: I can hardly argue with your preconceived convictions of what accounts are fictitious. It's not enough for anyone. Piling your fictions bigger and higher doesn't turn them into truths.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Tangle writes:
So now you move the goal posts. I bet you've not read any Bart Ehrman either. He spends a lot of time raging at the poverty of biblical scholarship. He thinks that Jesus was a historical figure but does not think that there was anything other than mythology about his life. I have not read his books but I have read his papers on the internet and listened to several of his videos.
Tangle writes: Romans kept records of all sorts of administrative affairs - including executions. Contemporary historians wrote about what was going on at the time but he's absent from their histories. The fact is, you have no facts, just stories invented decades after the supposed death that grow in detail (and contradict) over time. Exactly like a myth. They crucified thousands with no records. Jesus was insignificant to them as He had no army just wasn't on their care about list.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
GDR writes:
That certainly was not my intent. I completely accept that Ehrman is an atheist biblical historian who has concluded from the evidence he sees that Jesus probably existed as a person. (He says he's agnostic about whether a god exists as he - and everyone else can't know - but atheist about believing god doesn't exist.) So now you move the goal posts. Personally I can't see how he arrives at that conclusion from the tiny amount of contended historical facts available, but that's by-the-by. I was simply pointing out that he also concludes that pretty much everything else about Jesus' life is myth. Including his so called resurrection.
Jesus was insignificant to them as He had no army just wasn't on their care about list. I think this is the most likely reason we know essentially nothing factual about him; he was utterly insignificant, just another messianic loon amongst many others at the time all clamouring for the end times. Decades later he was mythologised into a belief system. But again, this is just one probable conclusion based on poor evidence - it's simply not possible to know, given the facts available, that's why there are never ending arguments about it.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024