The Paris Attacks: The Consequence of Goodness Without Truth

[BeRational]

A great deal of scholarship has been given over to what you say.  I think before you merely label it all with your own, slanted, meaning, you should acquaint yourself with some objective analysis.

What analysis can be done on text said to be the words of Jesus.

In actual fact, you cannot know if ANY words in the bible were uttered by someone called Jesus.

It is not even known who wrote the gospels.

[Outrider]

I think you and Outrider need to look at some Biblical commentary, and start by looking up midrash.

Why? Either you can arbitrarily decide some bits don't fit the narrative you want and presume that the author overwrote the original intent with this own, or you can't.

Unless you've got a methodology for determining which bits to take literally and which to think are metaphoric or edited that doesn't involve 'which bits don't fit with the hippy image of Jesus we want to portray' then it's just post-hoc rationalisation to fit your own view rather than the text. If you do have a method, by all means let us know what it is.

Midrash is Judaism's tortured attempts to try to reconcile the Old Testament God with reality, it's the Jewish version of Christian Apologetics, and it's equally as baseless. It starts from the position 'I don't like that literal interpretation' and wanders off on a path of wish-fulfillment to try to neuter that particular passage.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Would that be the type of objective analysis which that nearly split the whole of Christianity over an iota?

The study of meaning and intention is not an objective one.

[Outrider]

A great deal of scholarship has been given over to what you say.  I think before you merely label it all with your own, slanted, meaning, you should acquaint yourself with some objective analysis.

Why is the believers scholarship 'objective analysis', but mine is 'slanted'? Is there a method to identify which sections should be considered metaphoric or edited, or not? I've never heard of one, despite many years of asking and reading. It's all, ultimately, 'Well Jesus can't really have meant that, that's horrid'. It speaks well of their intentions, but it says nothing of their methodology.

It's a testament to humanity that people recognise that nastiness and try to address it, but it's also testament to human credulity that they torture logic to do it rather than just accepting that the whole concept of Jesus is baseless in the first place.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Why? Either you can arbitrarily decide some bits don't fit the narrative you want and presume that the author overwrote the original intent with this own, or you can't.

Unless you've got a methodology for determining which bits to take literally and which to think are metaphoric or edited that doesn't involve 'which bits don't fit with the hippy image of Jesus we want to portray' then it's just post-hoc rationalisation to fit your own view rather than the text. If you do have a method, by all means let us know what it is.

Midrash is Judaism's tortured attempts to try to reconcile the Old Testament God with reality, it's the Jewish version of Christian Apologetics, and it's equally as baseless. It starts from the position 'I don't like that literal interpretation' and wanders off on a path of wish-fulfillment to try to neuter that particular passage.

O.

Let's get it straight:  I am not deciding anything:  I am following accepted scholarly accounts, which I have studied over the years.  It is nothing to do with wish-fulfilment, that is an immature judgement.

[Outrider]

Let's get it straight:  I am not deciding anything:  I am following accepted scholarly accounts, which I have studied over the years.  It is nothing to do with wish-fulfilment, that is an immature judgement.

Is it? Then you'll be able to explain the 'scholarly' method by which a decision is made on which bits are 'genuine Jesus' and which bits are people putting words in his mouth, surely?

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Is it? Then you'll be able to explain the 'scholarly' method by which a decision is made on which bits are 'genuine Jesus' and which bits are people putting words in his mouth, surely?

O.

Good grief!  Whole books have been written about it.  I'm afraid I still have to suggest you do little, or lot, more researching.

[Nearly Sane]

Whole books have been written about the problems of ascertaining any such thing as objective meaning. I take it you have read them all and you have reading for rejecting them. BA?

[Outrider]

Good grief!  Whole books have been written about it.  I'm afraid I still have to suggest you do little, or lot, more researching.

I've read some - not all, by any stretch. I've spoken with people that accept the idea. Neither what I've read nor the people I've asked have explained that methodology. I don't particularly want examples, I just want to know how you decide which bits are 'true' and which bits aren't.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Whole books have been written about the problems of ascertaining any such thing as objective meaning. I take it you have read them all and you have reading for rejecting them. BA?

Don't be silly!  What I can say is that I have studied the subject for many years, and as a reasonably intelligent person, I have come to my conclusions.  I very much doubt you have put as much work in, and when you have done so, your views, if still the same, might carry more weight.

[Nearly Sane]

You've put a lot of study into the problem of meaning in language? Given you think there is a set of objective meanings that can be assigned the way you are punting here then I find that unlikely.


I have no idea how much time and effort you have put on, just as you have no idea how much I might have put in, but I suggest that it is better to make arguments and have discussions rather than make boasting comments about the amount of perspiration you might have wiped away. Apart from anything else, one should not mistake effort for achievement.

[Dicky Underpants]

You've put a lot of study into the problem of meaning in language? Given you think there is a set of objective meanings that can be assigned the way you are punting here then I find that unlikely.


I have no idea how much time and effort you have put on, just as you have no idea how much I might have put in, but I suggest that it is better to make arguments and have discussions rather than make boasting comments about the amount of perspiration you might have wiped away. Apart from anything else, one should not mistake effort for achievement.

BA has for a long time made that word "Midrash" count for rather a lot. It's a useful way of sanctioning the exclusion of most of the Jewish-inclined sayings attributed to Jesus. Needless to say it reflects a deeply ingrained bias on the part of the scholars in question who adopt this approach.
It also goes without saying that a large number of distinguished scholars adopt an almost contrary approach, and emphasise the essential Jewishness of the historical Jesus. Schweitzer was very much in this camp, but the more modern proponents of the Jewish Jesus are figures such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman etc. (and just in case someone starts to pipe up; yes, I've read them )

There are quite a number of other takes on Jesus, as I'm sure you know: the Jesus Seminar approach, typified by John Dominic Crossan takes a very different view to the above. And there's also the 'Jesus the Magician'* approach. I'm sure all these differing scholars think they're being as objective as possible.

*The most notorious book adopting this approach was the work of Morton Smith, published in 1978 (this one I haven't read). There was a prolific poster on the old BBC site who was convinced that this take on Jesus was the correct one, and had written a university thesis on it, apparently.

[Dicky Underpants]

Midrash is Judaism's tortured attempts to try to reconcile the Old Testament God with reality, it's the Jewish version of Christian Apologetics, and it's equally as baseless. It starts from the position 'I don't like that literal interpretation' and wanders off on a path of wish-fulfillment to try to neuter that particular passage.

O.

A bit harsh, but probably true enough.

[BashfulAnthony]

You've put a lot of study into the problem of meaning in language? Given you think there is a set of objective meanings that can be assigned the way you are punting here then I find that unlikely.


I have no idea how much time and effort you have put on, just as you have no idea how much I might have put in, but I suggest that it is better to make arguments and have discussions rather than make boasting comments about the amount of perspiration you might have wiped away. Apart from anything else, one should not mistake effort for achievement....

I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period.  Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study.  I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views.  I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism:  views which I once held myself.  It is never too late to adjust.   I'm not suggesting I am the be-all and end-all as far as Christianity is concerned;  but I have a more widespread background, on it, than most atheists, whose views here are redolent of a lack of knowledge.  That may sound superior, but I believe it is the truth of it.

[Owlswing]

I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period.  Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study.  I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views.  I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism:  views which I once held myself.  It is never too late to adjust.

Your study of Christianity has, I believe you have previously stated, led you to teaching Divinity I think it was, excuse me if I have that wrong,

This would suggest, to me anyway, that your study was extremely biased toward obtaining employment in your chosen field.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA has for a long time made that word "Midrash" count for rather a lot. It's a useful way of sanctioning the exclusion of most of the Jewish-inclined sayings attributed to Jesus. Needless to say it reflects a deeply ingrained bias on the part of the scholars in question who adopt this approach.
It also goes without saying that a large number of distinguished scholars adopt an almost contrary approach, and emphasise the essential Jewishness of the historical Jesus. Schweitzer was very much in this camp, but the more modern proponents of the Jewish Jesus are figures such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman etc. (and just in case someone starts to pipe up; yes, I've read them )

There are quite a number of other takes on Jesus, as I'm sure you know: the Jesus Seminar approach, typified by John Dominic Crossan takes a very different view to the above. And there's also the 'Jesus the Magician'* approach. I'm sure all these differing scholars think they're being as objective as possible.

*The most notorious book adopting this approach was the work of Morton Smith, published in 1978 (this one I haven't read). There was a prolific poster on the old BBC site who was convinced that this take on Jesus was the correct one, and had written a university thesis on it, apparently.

Matthew, as a "good" Jew used midrash to attempt to reconcile the life and sayings of Jesus with his own OT teaching and beliefs.  Matthew was in no sense attempting to sanction any sayings of Jesus:  quite the contrary:  he was attempting to reconcile what Jesus said with mainstream Judaism, which He was often at variance with, in order to make Him acceptable to the Jewish community, which had rejected Him.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period.  Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study.  I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views.  I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism:  views which I once held myself.  It is never too late to adjust.   I'm not suggesting I am the be-all and end-all as far as Christianity is concerned;  but I have a more widespread background, on it, than most atheists, whose views here are redolent of a lack of knowledge.  That may sound superior, but I believe it is the truth of it.

And I'm talking about studying meaning in linguistics,I find your expression on that not thought out, or well informed, or reinforced by study. The same for much of your philosophical positions BUT I can't just assert that that is true because of opinion of you, or my study into it. I have to make the case based on what you say and what I argue against it. The amount or indeed lack of time you or I may have spent studying it is not relevant to whether we are right or wrong.

[Outrider]

I'm not boasting, just pointing out that I have studied Christianity in detail, over a long period.  Many of the views expressed here, by atheists, are not well-informed, nor properly thought out or reinforced by study.  I have argued over many aspects over the years, with people of differing views.  I am not confining myself to prejudiced ideas, and unwilling to concede anything to other interpretations, not open to reasonable argument. I have radically changed my views over OT theology, over the years, and met much criticism:  views which I once held myself.  It is never too late to adjust.   I'm not suggesting I am the be-all and end-all as far as Christianity is concerned;  but I have a more widespread background, on it, than most atheists, whose views here are redolent of a lack of knowledge.  That may sound superior, but I believe it is the truth of it.

As it stands, that's great, you should find the question relatively easy, then. Unfortunately, rather than answering it and making an argument you appear to be resorting to an attempt at an argument from authority. I can quite accept that you've studied - did you study how to choose which are the 'right' and 'wrong' bits? How do you experts choose?

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

Your study of Christianity has, I believe you have previously stated, led you to teaching Divinity I think it was, excuse me if I have that wrong,

This would suggest, to me anyway, that your study was extremely biased toward obtaining employment in your chosen field.

I was a primary teacher and taught RE and history and games as my main subjects, though of course you had to turn your hand to other aspects.  But, fortunately, in my day employment was not difficult to find.   

[Owlswing]

I was a primary teacher and taught RE and history and games as my main subjects, though of course you had to turn your hand to other aspects.  But, fortunately, in my day employment was not difficult to find.

. . . and this means what, precisely?

[BashfulAnthony]

. . . and this means what, precisely?

It means that my chosen subjects were not chosen in order to assure employment, as it was not a problem finding a post.  If anything, as now, my biggest advantage was being a male, as male primary teachers were scarce, as they are now.

[BeRational]

It means that my chosen subjects were not chosen in order to assure employment, as it was not a problem finding a post.  If anything, as now, my biggest advantage was being a male, as male primary teachers were scarce, as they are now.

Can you describe the methodology whereby you take texts from the bible run it through the method and determine what is literally true, and what can be in ignored?

That is the question being posed to you, and the amountof study you have done by s not relevant.
Either you have a method or you don't.
Which is it?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA has for a long time made that word "Midrash" count for rather a lot. It's a useful way of sanctioning the exclusion of most of the Jewish-inclined sayings attributed to Jesus. Needless to say it reflects a deeply ingrained bias on the part of the scholars in question who adopt this approach.
It also goes without saying that a large number of distinguished scholars adopt an almost contrary approach, and emphasise the essential Jewishness of the historical Jesus. Schweitzer was very much in this camp, but the more modern proponents of the Jewish Jesus are figures such as Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Bart Ehrman etc. (and just in case someone starts to pipe up; yes, I've read them )

There are quite a number of other takes on Jesus, as I'm sure you know: the Jesus Seminar approach, typified by John Dominic Crossan takes a very different view to the above. And there's also the 'Jesus the Magician'* approach. I'm sure all these differing scholars think they're being as objective as possible.

*The most notorious book adopting this approach was the work of Morton Smith, published in 1978 (this one I haven't read). There was a prolific poster on the old BBC site who was convinced that this take on Jesus was the correct one, and had written a university thesis on it, apparently.

With both Vermes and Sanders, there is at least superficial credibility about their views on Jesus' role as a very Jewish teacher and prophet, imbued, as they contend, in purely OT thinking. Their views are at face value, attractive; but the consensus seems to be that they are mistaken in regarding Jesus as a purely Jewish leader.   There is one particular quote from Jesus, which neither of them suitably explains away:

 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."


Also, if He was referring to Gentiles when he said, "I have other sheep that are not of this fold", then he must have already by that time put aside the idea that he "was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel ," if He ever thought that.

One point worth mentioning, is that both these eminent Biblical scholars had no problem with the historicity, and indeed the divinity of Jesus.  Perhaps some of the resident atheists here might benefit from a look at their work.

[BeRational]

The historicity of Jesus is not accepted by historians.

That's why it's not taught in history.

[BashfulAnthony]

The historicity of Jesus is not accepted by historians.

That's why it's not taught in history.

Nonsense!