Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[Outrider]

If I had witnessed the resurrection I think it would have stuck in my mind for more than 20 yrs !

People often make that mistake of thinking that emotional significance of strong reactions at the time somehow make the memory more reliable, but investigation fairly consistently shows that this isn't the case.

Even then, it's still dependent upon the person's interpretation at the time, which is just as fallible.

O.

[Andy]

My wife still swears she saw a ghost seven years ago. I didn't believe her at the time and I still don't believe her now...

[Hope]

So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.

Except where scholarly research contradicts that, O.  Such as - Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen,

[Outrider]

So no, the idea that just because they couldn't write they developed super-powers for verbatim memory isn't held up by the scholarly research.

Except where scholarly research contradicts that, O.  Such as - Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen,

Ong's work is all theoretical, hypothesising about pre-literate cultures with - by definition - no actual evidence to go on. Modern world sociologists, though, reviewing extant cultures without written language, and remnant cultures without written language are able to show the shift in oral tradition.

The tracing of various oral traditions, and their variations, through the Celtic people as they spread across Europe and had their legends translated into the local languages is a case in point. Whilst there is some inevitable loss of consistency due to translation errors and the lack of a complete cultural correlate, there are underlying differences to the fundamentals of the stories.

The evidence just doesn't support this idea of superhuman preliterate memory machines passing on a wealth of eternally unchanging stories.

It's also worth noting, for full disclosure as it were, that Ong, Walter J is more formally Reverend Father Walter Jackson Ong, a Jesuit priest. That doesn't invalidate his research, but it does give a fuller idea of the preconceptions he brings to it.
O.

[Alien]

Yes, I know that and so does 2Corrie. Let's rephrase it then. If she or I had met up with the risen Jesus, talked with him and eaten with him, particularly if we did this a number of times, we think we would remember it 20 years and more later. That is the point being made, despite Rose's silly comment.

I don't remember any repeated meetings or meals with Jesus ... they were all one off instances by different people, but please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong. Have a read of the end of John's gospel, for example.

[Hope]

We have first person testimony from someone we know existed in the US - we have his criminal records to show that he was real - yet the majority of them don't accept Mormonism?

We have historical documents from the middle East giving accounts of Mohammed's encounters with one of the angels, and the lessons he taught, yet they don't accept Islam.

It's almost as though the justifications come after the belief, or something...

O.

O, the problem with both Islam and Mormonism is that what they teach is in direct contradiction of what Jesus taught, yet both want to make use of Jesus and his teachings as one of a number of pillars that support their teachings.  Perhaps you struggle to understand the illogical nature of that position.

[Hope]

And again, even were verbal recall to be better, it does not mean that event recall is better.

Notice that all this debate is taking place within a literary tradition, involving people who have little or no experience of living within an oral tradition, and all of whom are literate; in other words, it involves almost no-one who has first-hand experience of not having a literate tradition to fall back upon.  As such we are no better than the blind leading the blind.

[Nearly Sane]

And again, even were verbal recall to be better, it does not mean that event recall is better.

Notice that all this debate is taking place within a literary tradition, involving people who have little or no experience of living within an oral tradition, and all of whom are literate; in other words, it involves almost no-one who has first-hand experience of not having a literate tradition to fall back upon.  As such we are no better than the blind leading the blind.

That's just pish - particualrly as you are the one to have been claiming to have some insight here. What you have just said is that you shouldn't have made the claims you did - did you want to do that ?

[Hope]

Word of mouth accounts have the same veracity as Chinese whispers, especially when passed down over the years, imo!

Its a pity for you, Floo, that scholarly research tends to disagree with you.  Obviously, you are entitled to your own opinion, but then you need to be able to provide evidence for that opinion which you have never done in all the years I have known you.

[Hope]

That's just pish - particualrly as you are the one to have been claiming to have some insight here. What you have just said is that you shouldn't have made the claims you did - did you want to do that ?

Sorry, NS, I have used scholarly research to back up what I am claiming.  With the exception of O, who has done something similar to back up his, no-one else has.

[Nearly Sane]

That's just pish - particualrly as you are the one to have been claiming to have some insight here. What you have just said is that you shouldn't have made the claims you did - did you want to do that ?

Sorry, NS, I have used scholarly research to back up what I am claiming.  With the exception of O, who has done something similar to back up his, no-one else has.

Yes - but you have just said that we cannot talk about it because we don't have that experience - which would then apply to any scholarly view you cite from now. Further the point I was making is not addressed by any of your claims, or the work of Ong since being able to repeat a story says nothing about the problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses.

[Outrider]

We have first person testimony from someone we know existed in the US - we have his criminal records to show that he was real - yet the majority of them don't accept Mormonism?

We have historical documents from the middle East giving accounts of Mohammed's encounters with one of the angels, and the lessons he taught, yet they don't accept Islam.

It's almost as though the justifications come after the belief, or something...

O.

O, the problem with both Islam and Mormonism is that what they teach is in direct contradiction of what Jesus taught, yet both want to make use of Jesus and his teachings as one of a number of pillars that support their teachings.  Perhaps you struggle to understand the illogical nature of that position.

Except that the problem with that is that Jesus' teachings stand in direct contrast to the Old Testament, yet you quite happily follow those and claim that they are an 'update'. Their internal justification is as valid as yours, they equally ignore the massive disconnect in change in character in a supposed timeless ultimate being that Christians do, yet you call them on it and accept your own.

From outside, the two look entirely equivalent.

O.

[Hope]

Ong's work is all theoretical, hypothesising about pre-literate cultures with - by definition - no actual evidence to go on. Modern world sociologists, though, reviewing extant cultures without written language, and remnant cultures without written language are able to show the shift in oral tradition.

It's also worth noting, for full disclosure as it were, that Ong, Walter J is more formally Reverend Father Walter Jackson Ong, a Jesuit priest. That doesn't invalidate his research, but it does give a fuller idea of the preconceptions he brings to it.

Except that Ong's work is also based on observations made by people.

Regarding his formal status, does that make any difference?  After all, Mendel ('father of genetics') was a monk.

For your information, I first heard about Ong as part of my MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester.

[Hope]

Yes - but you have just said that we cannot talk about it because we don't have that experience - which would then apply to any scholarly view you cite from now. Further the point I was making is not addressed by any of your claims, or the work of Ong since being able to repeat a story says nothing about the problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses.

Ong and others use the experience and study of extant non-literate communities in their studies.  As regards the 'problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses', the problems are all based on 'literate' understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - but you have just said that we cannot talk about it because we don't have that experience - which would then apply to any scholarly view you cite from now. Further the point I was making is not addressed by any of your claims, or the work of Ong since being able to repeat a story says nothing about the problem we know exists as regards eyewitnesses.

Ong and others use the experience and study of extant non-literate communities in their studies.

Excpet your post indicated that it was onl;y by experince of being a native of non-literate that would allow anyone to talk about it. Studying them would not do that. That's why I asked if you meant to say that - I suggest you try again.

And as already pointed out, I don't need to cite any acadmeics to make the point that the work of Ong does not address anything about the relialbility of eyewitnesses.

[Outrider]

Except that Ong's work is also based on observations made by people.

Hand up, here, I've not read the work myself, but from the reviews I've read the general commentary is that his work is predominantly theoretical. No-one went so far in the reviews to accuse him of cherry picking any practical work, but they were fairly consistent in saying that the prevailing practical research went against his conclusions.

Regarding his formal status, does that make any difference?  After all, Mendel ('father of genetics') was a monk.

An argument stands on its own merits, and I hope I've put forward why I think the argument doesn't stand up. My noting that he was a Jesuit priest - a group who, in general, have a good track record for academic work - was more an attempt to understand why he might cleave to a path that the evidence based thinking of the time (this was the early 80s when he published) didn't support.

Coupled with the fact that the bulk of his actual scholarly work wasn't to do with the veracity or consistency of the oral traditions, but rather the impact literacy had on culture - it was, therefore, focussed more on the cultures that WERE literate than those that weren't - it suggests that he's not an ideal prop for the argument of oral inerrancy.

For your information, I first heard about Ong as part of my MA in Applied Linguistics and TESOL from the University of Leicester.

My background is science, computing and engineering, however the argument stands on its merits, not on the Reverend's calling or education, nor on yours or mine.

O.

[Leonard James]

You are wrong. Have a read of the end of John's gospel, for example.

I can't see anything there that shows repeated meetings with Jesus after his resurrection. Can you quote me the specific verses?

[Alien]

You are wrong. Have a read of the end of John's gospel, for example.

I can't see anything there that shows repeated meetings with Jesus after his resurrection. Can you quote me the specific verses?

John 20:19-28 tells us of Jesus meeting the disciples (minus Thomas) and then same again a week later, this time with Thomas. Other disciples, e.g. Mary Magdalene had met him beforehand as well, so they would have met him three times.
With Peter meeting him twice as above, we then have him (and others) meeting Jesus again in John 21. Remember too the accounts given in 1 Corinthians 15 which seem to speak of Peter meeting Jesus on his own.

Etc.

[Leonard James]

John 20:19-28 tells us of Jesus meeting the disciples (minus Thomas) and then same again a week later, this time with Thomas. Other disciples, e.g. Mary Magdalene had met him beforehand as well, so they would have met him three times.
With Peter meeting him twice as above, we then have him (and others) meeting Jesus again in John 21. Remember too the accounts given in 1 Corinthians 15 which seem to speak of Peter meeting Jesus on his own.

Etc.

OK Alan, thank you for that, it seems that some of them did see him several times.

If that is true, we either have to accept that he resurrected or that he wasn't dead after the crucifixion.

[Shaker]

The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.

[ippy]

If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?

Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?

ippy

[Shaker]

If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?

Because there's no such proof, ipster. At all 

Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?

ippy

Well, I think I can help you there ... 

[floo]

If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?

Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?

ippy

Surely Jesus wouldn't have disappeared up to heaven so quickly if he had really resurrected. Why isn't he still around today in the flesh, instead of the imagination?

[Leonard James]

The 'if' is, as usual, the oh-so-small but oh-so-important word in that sentence.

Yes, I agree. But if the reported sightings are true, then as far as I am concerned Jesus didn't die on the cross ... and it is totally impossible to produce evidence that he did.

[Alien]

If there has been conclusive proof of this god/Jesus thing, the coming back to life etc, how come the whole of the worlds not inconsiderable amount media networking hasn't produced this revelation of facts before us and in a way that would be simply understandable for all to appreciate?

Perhaps I've missed this world shattering event, I don't think I have; if this conclusive evidence of the supernatural side of this Jesus bloke hasn't been revealed to the world yet, why would that be?

ippy

Surely Jesus wouldn't have disappeared up to heaven so quickly if he had really resurrected.

Why not? He was around for 40 days.

Why isn't he still around today in the flesh, instead of the imagination?

Why do you say it is (just) in the imagination? He did send his Spirit.