I am, admittedly biased in favor of Christianity and Jesus. Why on earth would I argue against Him?
Can you now accept that it would be impossible for you, and believers like you, to objectively study biblical historicity?
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
No. Confirmation bias exists in atheists as well as believers.
No-one is without bias. But faith is more than a bias, it's a firm belief in the supernatural and a requirement for the safety of your soul. Do you think it's remotely possible for a believer to conclude from the facts as presented that a historical Jesus never existed?
Given that you say this ...
Phat writes:
I am, admittedly biased in favor of Christianity and Jesus. Why on earth would I argue against Him?
... t's clear you could not.
And, btw, an atheist could easily accept evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It would not mean that there was any truth behind what he is said to have done. Of course if there was any evidence - unlike a believer - any rational atheist would change their mind.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
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:The five discourses in the Gospel of Matthew are: the Sermon on the Mount (5-7), the discourse on discipleship (10), the discourse of parables (13), the discourse on the community of faith (18), and the discourse on future events (24-25).[4] However, like all or most of the other "discourses" in Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount should not be seen as an actual speech by Jesus of Nazareth but as a literary construct by the Gospel writer using material drawn from various places in his sources,[5]
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
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.)
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
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.
I'll leave Percy to deal with that, but just on a point of fact relating to an earlier point, Bauckham says outright that Jesus did not give the Sermon on the Mount, it was created by whoever the author of Matthew was.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
So in an "expert" appeal to authority, this author knows for a fact that Jesus was likely a fictional character and yet he can't even tell us who the author of Matthew was? He needs to brush up on his homework.
No Phat, Bauckham is GDR's expert not mine - he believes that Jesus was real and what is written in the gospel's is reliable. He's actually one of the better biblical scholars. Even so, he says that Jesus never said the Sermon on the Mount.
quote:Richard John Bauckham FRSE FBA[1] (born 22 September 1946) is an English Anglican scholar in theology, historical theology and New Testament studies, specialising in New Testament Christology and the Gospel of John. He is a senior scholar at Ridley Hall, Cambridge.
Bauckham is a prolific author of books and journal articles. In 2006, Bauckham published his most widely-read work Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, a book that defends the historical reliability of the gospels.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
My problem is that I keep trying to work with your view of what constitutes evidence. The Bible is a collection of books with hundreds of individuals collectively involved. Each book has its own style and written in tits own culture and time and with its own biases. In my view it is a history of the progressive understanding of God by humans. It concludes with the life of Jesus and His death and resurrection. Is it evidence and if not then why not. I'm not asking whether or not it is good or poor evidence but simply is it evidence at all.
Is it evidence at all? Well of course it is, even a modern book of known pure fiction is evidence of something - the writer, the publisher, the plot etc etc. You need to be specific about what you're claiming that the book is evidence of, then show why it is.
Every claim made for the bible as evidence of the existence of the supernatural can be rebutted with equally good argument that it is not. This is because everybody is looking at exactly the same data and forming a different opinion. And by everybody I mean those qualified to do so. The actual evidence - real evidence, not opinion and wishful thinking - is so lacking that believers can put any spin on it they prefer, but it's not based on actual evidence.
Historians need to apply a scientific methodology to their work if they want to call what they do history. Otherwise what they're doing is theology and apologetics and that is mostly what we have.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. Firstly it isn't about asking to make my life, ( or for others in the congregation), better. It is about us being better people, not for any reward in this life or the next. The part that refers to the next life was formed by reading N T Wright when he writes about us living lives in the present as we anticipate how lives will be lived after the re-creation of all things. Part of the prayer is about leading lives of Christ like love. I know that I pray that but deep down I know I don't really want that. I think of Jesus praying in Gethsemane not to have to make a messianic statement by riding a colt into Jerusalem and openly confronting the Jewish authorities. He knew what would happen to anyone who did what He felt called to do. He did that on faith believing, through His understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, that this was His messianic calling. I have no doubt that I wouldn't have the guts to follow through with something like that.
Yeh, well, what can I say...just embarrassing nonsense really, but that's apparently normal in your world.
Good questions and there really isn't a good answer.
The fact that you - and, of course, no-one else in history - has an answer to this problem, never seems to matter. It's just left on the top bookshelf labeled "mysteries, do not touch". I haven't read what you say next but I bet I could have written it for you.
At this point it comes down to faith,
humph.
which goes to show how weak my own is. I believe that as a Christian I should be vegetarian, but it hasn't happened. I know I should be more generous than I am. The Bible says to to whom much is given much is expected. I have been given much and whatever the expectations are I have no doubt that I'm not living up to them. However, I do believe that God does give our lives meaning and purpose and that somehow there is meaning and purpose beyond the world as it is. I believe that on faith.
Yeh, we know what you believe, you tell us over and over. But why should anyone else care what you believe? Maybe it impresses your fellow believers but you're amongst the lions here - we want meat. How can you believe what you believe when such a fundamental piece of the logic behind the belief is so obviously terminally contradictory? Not just missing, but something that undermines the entire edifice of the belief in a loving god.
There is no answer, but the attempted rationalisation involves the torture and murder of a person that's supposed to be a god but is also human in order to redeem the sins of other humans that the same god made sinful. The whole thing is simply preposterous.
You believe because you believe, well fine, but here we want reasons, critical thought and evidence, not just pious waffle and belief statements.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
This is all just silly apologetics. We know that there were dozens of apocalyptic jewish cults in 1st century Jerusalem predicting the end times because of previous prophecies. Even Paul thought it would be in his lifetime. Nothing to do with Romans.
1 Thessalonians 4:15–17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
We keep quoting Matthew but of course it's also in Mark. The actual words
The Arrival of the Son of Man 24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, ‘the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.’f 26 And then they will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels, and will gather theg elect together from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.
The Parable of the Fig Tree 28 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also you, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the door. 30 Truly I say to you that this generation will never pass away until all these things take place! 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Couldn't be clearer.
Edited by Tangle, .
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Yes, it is the majority opinion that has been assumed since about 1900 or so but it is becoming less so.
Does ANY biblical historian - note historian, not theologian or apologist - think that the Sermon on the Mount was an actual speech?
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
He absolutely does! I just heard him say it debating with Ehrman. (Abe See next post)
You don't need anyone else to tell you, you can just read it, it's prose. It's been composed at a writing desk and worked on. Of course it's a composition!
Also Bauckham contends that the Gospel is either directly written by Matthew or more likely from material supplied by Matthew.
Yeh, but most disagree with him, Matthew copied Mark and possibly Q about 40 years after Christ's death but you prefer a minority view just because it suits you.
Look, any of these people can imagine any number of hypothetical scenarios and find reason to argue them. The simple fact is that there is no real evidence - none. If there was there woudn't be these daft arguments 2,000 years later.
These guys have spent their entire lives studying everything in tiny detail and got used to composing scenarios that they can write a book on, but have forgotten what actual evidence looks like. This stuff is entirely hypothetical and unprovable.
What we do know is how flaky the entire edifice is - anonymous writers writing decades after a supposed event. No eye witnesses, redactions, interpolations, forgeries and inventions. You've built a house on sand.
Edited by Tangle, .
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Here is Bauckham saying that the Sermon on the Mount was is a collection of sayings made by the evangelists.
Start at 38 mins if that's all you want to hear, but best listen to the whole thing and even better listen to the first one in the series too.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I listened to it at the 38-minute mark, but I am wondering why you promote this and why it means something to you for us to hear it. It *does* broaden my perspective, so I figure it can cause me no harm. I wish you followed the links and videos I provide as a tit-for-tat experience, but you guys are convinced I am but a loon!
It wasn't for you Phat, it was for GDR - though you'd learn a lot by listening to all of it and the preceding one too. These are two accredited biblical scholars just flat out disagreeing with each other.
Anyway, I said that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount (as an example of how what we're generally told as laity about the gospels being factually wrong). I gave him the wiki saying that we should not see the SotM that way. He said that talked about Bauckham thinks he did. So that video at that timing has Bauckham saying that the SotM was not said by Jesus - it's a written by whoever Matthew was.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
People like Wright and Bauckham do just that. It is simply the fact that you don't find their arguments convincing. Everybody starts out with a bias including Carrier.
I don't think you're getting this. The scientific method is impartial; people aren't. I don't find ANY of their arguments convincing because none of them are dealing with real evidence.
I find Carrier and Ehrman interesting and useful because they are at least are trying to find the minimum case; they're pretty ruthlessly trying to establish what is reasonably known, not just adduced or implied and try to base it on evidence. But just for the record, I distrust Carrier's motives almost as much as Bauckham's. My own bias is towards Ehrman - I think he not only knows more than almost anyone about biblical historicity, but he's also following a scientific methodology better than most.
Listen to those two Erhman and Bauckham discussions and notice the difference in approaches to THE SAME DATA. Bauckhan is forming conclusions from pure hypotheses, Ehrman is insisting on him providing evidence to support them. He doesn't.
I've spent a few days listening to these sort of debates, I think both Carrier and Erhman at least try to do history. I think Bauckham is doing some history but using it to do theology. But I think all of them are wasting their lives because there's nothing real for them to go on. There's nothing there that remotely comes even close to the standards of evidence we'd need to form any conclusions at all - it's all errudite speculation disguised as scholarship. Everybody gets to write loads of books saying this or that, no-one can convince anyone that doesn't already want to believe what they already believe.
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. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
™ Version 4.2
