Scriptural Interpretation

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dicky,

Well, to me this seems no more than an ultimate appeal to subjectivity: "God has spoken to me, so I know". In my mystic days, I would have endorsed such musings. However, Russell summarily dismissed arguments like this. No matter how apparently devastating the 'revelations' may be, ultimately they remain true for the individual only. And 'true for me means true for you' is certainly a position built on sand.

I just read the Tillich quote and was just about to respond with a, "then how the hell would anyone know that they do have a "revealed truth" rather than something else entirely?" type but I see that (as usual) Russell got there before me. Where's Tillich's path from, "it feels true to me" to, "it's therefore true for you too"?

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes indeed, Prof.    Lewis' "Surprised by Joy" (from which the above references come, I think) is full of this kind of confused thinking - as is that tawdry little volume "Mere Christianity", which is riddled with puerile non-sequiturs. It is one of the wonders of publishing and radio broadcasting that this 10th-rate thinker ever became a major spokesman for Christian thought in the English-speaking world, whatever his virtues as an imaginative writer may have been. That his religious prosings seem to have been a significant element in Vlad's conversion speaks volumes.
Still, I'll forgive Lewis quite a lot for having written "Till We Have Faces".

I'm rather a fan of the Narnia books, having a soft spot for them form childhood (albeit the final two written are pretty tedious).

But I've never been taken with the intellectual strength of his arguments on Christianity. So for example the 'mad, bad or god' trilemma that he seemed so fond of. This is a ludicrously weak argument - as it ignore perhaps the most obvious and likely reason - that Jesus' words and teachings were misinterpreted and/or exaggerated by others writing later for their own ends. To simply ignore this possibility (which 'mad, bad or god' implicitly does) demonstrates either a lack of honesty and integrity, or a woeful lack of intellectual rigour.

And it isn't just atheist commentators who have criticised Lewis' manifestly poor 'mad, bad or god' argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm rather a fan of the Narnia books, having a soft spot for them form childhood (albeit the final two written are pretty tedious).

But I've never been taken with the intellectual strength of his arguments on Christianity. So for example the 'mad, bad or god' trilemma that he seemed so fond of. This is a ludicrously weak argument - as it ignore perhaps the most obvious and likely reason - that Jesus' words and teachings were misinterpreted and/or exaggerated by others writing later for their own ends. To simply ignore this possibility (which 'mad, bad or god' implicitly does) demonstrates either a lack of honesty and integrity, or a woeful lack of intellectual rigour.

And it isn't just atheist commentators who have criticised Lewis' manifestly poor 'mad, bad or god' argument.

So there is a fourth member or fifth of the trilemma.
Jesus though could still though be mad, bad or God couldn't he so you are making something big out of small point. To say that Jesus could have been misquoted (an act of either madness or badness) or wrong (in which case belief if not true is madness...which is what a lot of New Atheists believe anyway) is stating the bleeding obvious.

Demonstrate that Jesus was misquoted.

[Gordon]

Demonstrate that Jesus was misquoted.

Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction. If you can't, given the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies, then we are in pinch of salt territory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, Dicky, I think 'Mere Christianity' is still touted as some kind of brilliant work, when as you say, it seems very poor.   He spends a lot of time on objective morality, with the usual non-arguments.   The fact that it is still often recommended, shows how poor Christian apologetics is today.

It's great
Feser's great
William Lane Craig is not the devil.
The new atheists are...well 15th rate.
The antitheists here are intellectual poseurs.
And you spout unmitigated wooly contradictory nonsense

............in my humble opinion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction. If you can't, given the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies, then we are in pinch of salt territory.

Haven't you heard of fake news? Fiction indistinguishable from fact. You are giving an argument from incredulity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

............in my humble worthless opinion.

Fixed it for you.

PS Hope you're not too cold tonight, what with a house being "the same as" bricks and cement and stuff.

[Gordon]

Haven't you heard of fake news? Fiction indistinguishable from fact. You are giving an argument from incredulity.

Indeed I have: very worrying it is too, especially for gullible types.

Now, as regards my alleged argument from incredulity: given the history of human artifice in relation to anecdotal accounts, my asking you (and I'll ask again) 'Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction' doesn't seem unreasonable: any chance of a meaningful answer?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

............in my humble worthless opinion.

Fixed it for you.

PS Hope you're not too cold tonight, what with a house being "the same as" bricks and cement and stuff.

Those are exactly the things about a house which keep us warm or do you believe in transubstantiation Ha Ha Ha.

Never mind Hillside one of your wizards will be around soon to console you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed I have: very worrying it is too, especially for gullible types.

Now, as regards my alleged argument from incredulity: given the history of human artifice in relation to anecdotal accounts, my asking you (and I'll ask again) 'Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction' doesn't seem unreasonable: any chance of a meaningful answer?

You obviously didn't get it. If you think you can distinguish any fake news item from a factual one then you are deluded about your capabilities.

If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.

But then Gordon history isn't I've noticed your strong suit.

[Gordon]

You obviously didn't get it. If you think you can distinguish any fake news item from a factual one then you are deluded about your capabilities.

Straw man - I didn't say I was immune from falling for fake news or 'spin'. It does pay to be sceptical though, especially in relation to claims that are highly unusual.

If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.

Depends on the provenance and the content.

But then Gordon history isn't I've noticed your strong suit.

Have you noticed that: if so then please advise. I'm sure this isn't a cheap ad hom and I always welcome constructive criticism.

By the way you've forgotten (no doubt an oversight) to answer my question, which was 'Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Straw man - I didn't say I was immune from falling for fake news or 'spin'. It does pay to be sceptical though, especially in relation to claims that are highly unusual.

Depends on the provenance and the content.

Then you are committing the Genetic fallacy.

[Gordon]

Then you are committing the Genetic fallacy.

Nope: I'm simply noting that what is attributed to Jesus involves sources where the provenance is uncertain, which is an entirely reasonable concern given the known problems with anecdotal accounts - the issues surrounding the Hillsborough enquiry for instance.

So, back to the question I asked, which I'll ask one last time: 'Demonstrate on what basis the quotes attributed to Jesus are distinguishable from fiction'. An answer would be good, but if not then you'll excuse me for concluding that you haven't addressed the risks of mistakes, exaggeration or lies in relation to accounts involving Jesus.

[ProfessorDavey]

So there is a fourth member or fifth of the trilemma.
Jesus though could still though be mad, bad or God couldn't he so you are making something big out of small point.

It isn't a small point - it lies at the heart of the dishonesty (or intellectual paucity) of the argument. What Lewis is trying to do is provide a forced choice on 3 options - with 2 of them seeming rather unsavoury thereby trying to prove the third to be correct. But this is false choice as there are far more than 3 options, and the ones he has chosen to ignore are those that are firstly highly plausible and secondly doesn't require us to make a value judgement on Jesus (i.e. was he mad, bad or god) - most likely he was none of those 3, he was a prophet and teacher and over the decades and centuries his teachings and words have become embellished with translation - with those responsible for that embellishment signed up to him as their leader, so therefore not impartial. Don't forget that Kim Jong Il shot a round of a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one in his one and only round of golf.

To say that Jesus could have been misquoted (an act of either madness or badness) or wrong (in which case belief if not true is madness...which is what a lot of New Atheists believe anyway) is stating the bleeding obvious.

So you accept that there are more options than mad, bad or god then - in which case thanks. And in doing so you ride coach and horses through Lewis' poor argument and you are in the company of those well known New Atheists such as William Lane Craig!!!

Demonstrate that Jesus was misquoted.

I don't need to demonstrate it, merely to indicate it to be a possibility (which you have accepted) and having indicated it to be a possibility the forced trilemma of Lewis crumbles to dust.

Point being that Lewis' argument only holds water if you can prove that Jesus wasn't misquoted - which of course you can't.

[ProfessorDavey]

To say that Jesus could have been misquoted (an act of either madness or badness) ...

The mad, bad or god of Lewis' trilemma refers to Jesus and not those of his entourage (and later) who might have misquoted him. So your implication that someone who was not Jesus misquoting Jesus is 'mad or bad' in trilemma terms is simply not the case - it has no relevance in the trilemma which was about Jesus thinking he was god when he wasn't (mad) or knowing he wasn't god but claiming he was (bad).

And actually misquoting may be an honest mistake - and certainly through time a series of honest mistakes leading to a complete change in meaning. That need not be mad or bad at all, merely being mistaken. Imagine you were asked what colour coat the guy who bought a train ticket in front of you was wearing days, weeks or years after the event. Imagine you genuinely though it was black when it was actually brown - you'd be neither mad nor bad, merely with understandably poor recollection.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.

I think there are very few 'quotes' from ancient history where you could credibly argue that they are direct quotes - i.e. exactly the words spoken at the time.

Add to that is issue of translation and it is even less likely.

Add to that time delay between the point at which the purported words were spoken and the point at which they were actually recorded in any reasonably reliable format (i.e. written down, where we actually have the original written document) and less so again.

So I love you to provide any quotes from 2 thousand year ago which respected historians would accept to be the actual words spoken.

Not just because they aren't actual quotes doesn't necessarily mean the words are 'fiction' - no it is plausible that they are an accurate representation of the meaning of what was said even through nor the actual words spoken. But if they aren't the actual words then there is second (or third or fourth) hand action and that will lead to creeping interpretation, particularly where the actor isn't impartial.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you take Jesus quotes as fiction then you are bound by the same principles to take any quotes from ancient history as fiction.

Nope - extraordinary claims requite extraordinary evidence and all that. If a quote from ancient history says, "Saul's sandal broke and he dropped his amphora" that wouldn't stand up as necessarily epistemically true, but neither would there be any particular reason to doubt it. It's a commonplace consistent with known events so the fact that the evidence for it was effectively anecdotal and potentially changed over time wouldn't matter much.

By contrast, the claim, "someone was dead for a bit and then alive again" is outside all known experience of the way the world actually works so requires exceptional evidence to be taken seriously, and thus the same manifest frailties in the evidence we do have matter vey much indeed. Worse yet, this claim is translated and repeated by people who are heavily invested in it being true - it's central to their faith beliefs –  so the risk of those people getting a bit creative in the re-telling is much greater than it would be when they really don't care much either way.

All this should be obvious to you by the way. There are countless miracle stories from many faith traditions with supporting anecdotal evidence just as insubstantial as that for the resurrection. If you really want to set the bar so low as to insist that the resurrection story is true, then you have no choice but to accept the same conclusions for Mohammed and his winged horse and the rest.

But then Vlad historicity isn't your strong suit is it.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't a small point - it lies at the heart of the dishonesty (or intellectual paucity) of the argument. What Lewis is trying to do is provide a forced choice on 3 options - with 2 of them seeming rather unsavoury thereby trying to prove the third to be correct. But this is false choice as there are far more than 3 options, and the ones he has chosen to ignore are those that are firstly highly plausible and secondly doesn't require us to make a value judgement on Jesus (i.e. was he mad, bad or god) - most likely he was none of those 3, he was a prophet and teacher and over the decades and centuries his teachings and words have become embellished with translation - with those responsible for that embellishment signed up to him as their leader, so therefore not impartial. Don't forget that Kim Jong Il shot a round of a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one in his one and only round of golf.
So you accept that there are more options than mad, bad or god then - in which case thanks. And in doing so you ride coach and horses through Lewis' poor argument and you are in the company of those well known New Atheists such as William Lane Craig!!!
I don't need to demonstrate it, merely to indicate it to be a possibility (which you have accepted) and having indicated it to be a possibility the forced trilemma of Lewis crumbles to dust.

Point being that Lewis' argument only holds water if you can prove that Jesus wasn't misquoted - which of course you can't.

Lewis is probably as honest as you can get since he acknowledges humanities universal condition of falling short of the mark morally.
For many if not all antitheists on here their subtext is either or all the following......that Christians are mentally deficient or abbérant or they are lacking morally and that would go for Jesus himself who led people to believe he was the son of God.......there are multiple sources on that and you have yet to establish that his quotes are made up by others.

I did detect earlier confusion by others between Jesus sayings and his ministry of miracles.

We are very much at the wire here and I'm afraid you either believe they are our Lords words or not.

The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.

[Sebastian Toe]

For many if not all antitheists on here

I'm wondering who all of those people are.
Would you be able to name them all please?

[Stranger]

The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses [sic] words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.

Who has argued this?

[Dicky Underpants]

Lewis is probably as honest as you can get since he acknowledges humanities universal condition of falling short of the mark morally.
For many if not all antitheists on here their subtext is either or all the following......that Christians are mentally deficient or abbérant or they are lacking morally and that would go for Jesus himself who led people to believe he was the son of God.......there are multiple sources on that and you have yet to establish that his quotes are made up by others.

You would indeed make a saint swear, and you certainly make me do so. For fuck sake do some genuine reading on real scholarly biblical criticism - there's been 200 years or so of it,  and you seem to be acquainted with fuck all. You might start with David Friedrich Strauss, but just to go easy on you, start with Albert Schweitzer (that one, just in case you think there might be others).

I did detect earlier confusion by others between Jesus sayings and his ministry of miracles.

We are very much at the wire here and I'm afraid you either believe they are our Lords words or not.

The wire of antitheism is that Jesuses words are bollocks because we are helpless and hapless bonobos caught in a Darwinian game.

As SKOS has indicated, no one has ever made such a categorical statement - I certainly haven't. But it does require at least some critical acumen to establish what he might or might not have said. To be as kind as I can to you, there is still a great degree of critical disagreement - between Dominic Crossan and Geza Vermes, for example; but at least these have at least some critical credentials in a far higher league than Jack the Whipper.

[Sassy]

It is really a case of listening to God through the Spirit or adopting the teachings of man.

It was shown by Christ that the Holy Spirit the teacher would come to all believers and that he would also show things to come.

John 16:13King  (KJV)

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

NOT just any spirit but the Spirit of Truth... So for the believer the arguments are not in the power of the word alone but the power of Gods word within us by the presence of his Holy Spirit. Christ said: "My WORDS are SPIRIT and THEY ARE LIFE."

The world has the WORDS from God not all have the Holy Spirit who gives us the truth within of those WORDS.