Quoting Jesus

[Shaker]

I only said my experience of Jesus is consistent with a resurrection in that it was not one of inflated hero worship or memorial for a good but very dead man but a real encounter with a risen Lord

But this experience in your head does not get you to "ancient man who was dead but then came back to life." The necessary links in the chain aren't there. Your experience in your head was just that, with a prior commitment to a particular narrative filling in the blanks.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think the epistolary evidence eclude that.

Paul's epistolary accounts are in fact the best sources to go to in support of the Myth hypothesis, since the man never met Jesus (except, supposedly, 'spiritually').

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You do this a lot. An argument is posted that (presumably) you read, and you then pick one tiny part from it to query while ignoring entirely the thrust of the point. Presumably you do it in the hope that the discussion will then veer away from the substantive issue that doesn't suit you and toward a trivial one that does.

What does this say about you do you think, and indeed about your confidence in your position?

What I said was: "The former doesn't seem particularly controversial to me - an itinerant preacher/mystic/street conjuror who reportedly said some interesting and worthwhile things isn't improbable enough to be overly doubtful about". Whether he was a combination of these naturalistic behaviours or of different ones doesn't matter at all for the point to stand, namely that claiming any such things wouldn't be particularly controversial.

So, did you have anything to say to the argument - namely that people at that time could not have known whether the claimed miracle actually happened?

 

So we have you someone with a love of interrogation, flicking out assertions like "street conjuror " and is above or can't justifying them. Let's try you with another.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Corrected it for you. Your "experience" and the narrative you reach for to explain it are not necessarily the same thing.

And would you say that the disciples also believed their experience of the resurrected?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Paul's epistolary accounts are in fact the best sources to go to in support of the Myth hypothesis, since the man never met Jesus (except, supposedly, 'spiritually').

In other words not terribly convincing source in support.

[ekim]

I agree - and there is a frustrating approach from some Christian apologists suggesting that if you believe the "Jesus the man" bit you must necessarily accept "Jesus the man-god", and the flip side being that if you reject "Jesus the man-god" you must necessarily reject "Jesus the man".

It is a perfectly legitimate view to accept, on the balance of probabilities that "Jesus the man" existed, was a preacher and was executed, while totally rejecting the fanciful "Jesus the man-god" claims.

It could be that it arises from incorrect translations of Hebrew idioms.   There are a number of expressions which aren't intended to be taken literally e.g. father of, mother of, brother of, daughter of and son of.  Father of God meant pious, mother of the arm meant forearm, brother of God meant friend, daughter of trees meant boughs.  Jesus had a couple of followers called sons of thunder, which didn't mean that their mother was impregnated by a thunder bolt, but that they were impetuous.  Son of man probably meant human (qualities) and son of God, divine (qualities).

[ProfessorDavey]

Well as I said earlier I was under no illusions that you would experience any epiphany of thinking from looking at his writings.  But thank you that you were prepared to put the time and effort into doing so and to do so with a more objective and open mindset than would have been the case for many others.  I do appreciate that.

Incidentally on the issue of the claimed miracles, I was first pointed in the direction of FF Bruce's writings by a man who had been involved in a horrific incident in the Western Desert during WW2.  He received severe third degree burns and was considered a hopeless case by the army doctors.  Yet he made a remarkable recovery (and I have deliberately avoided using the phrase miraculous recovery).  But perhaps a subject for some more specific future thread on this topic when (as it surely will) it once again comes under discussion.  I do not intend being the cause of derailing this thread completely.

I'm always happy to learn more.

But don't forget I am a professional scientist and an academic - examining evidence and the arguments that arise from that evidence is what I do for a living. I'm pretty good at seeing the wood for the trees.

To my view Bruce makes a reasonable fist at being neutral - and the article is best when he is doing that. I think it is to his credit that he doesn't make an attempt to argue for miracles as historical fact, rather he accepts then as unevidenced articles of faith. He does however drift into special pleading and lowering the evidential bar on occasions and this is always to support his clear pre-existing belief in Christianity. It does him no favours when he does this and it actually weakens rather than strengthens his arguments.

[wigginhall]

Paul's epistolary accounts are in fact the best sources to go to in support of the Myth hypothesis, since the man never met Jesus (except, supposedly, 'spiritually').

Paul is cited as part of the 'multiple sources' argument for historical Jesus, along with the gospels, plus gospel of John, which is reckoned to be separate, also Thomas, maybe.   Plus stuff like Josephus, and of course, Q, which is getting rather rarefied.  It is very meagre, but so is the evidence for Hannibal. 

I usually check out Tim O'Neill for good summaries of the historical approach.

http://armariummagnus.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/did-jesus-exist-jesus-myth-theory-again.html

[ProfessorDavey]

It is very meagre, but so is the evidence for Hannibal.

But whether or not people believe in Hannibal has no bearing on modern society.

[DaveM]

The gospels were written along time after Jesus died, I don't see how it is possible for even those who knew Jesus in person to have been able to quote him word for word years later. I very much doubt they wrote them down at the time he was actually supposed to have said those things. What Jesus actually said and the meaning of his words, could have been very different to what the gospels quoted him as saying.

How many of us could quote accurately word for word something which was said to us last week, for instance? The game of Chinese whispers makes my point well, a sentence which is passed down the line is nothing like it was when it started out.

I first walked into the church where I still worship on the first Sunday of September 1969, some 48 years ago.  I seem to recollect that it was Sunday 7th.  The subject of the sermon was a look at earthquakes found in the Scriptures and what we could learn and apply from them.  I can still remember quite a bit of the detail.  The minister moved to another church at the end of 1975 and I also have very clear recollections of aspects of many other of his sermons during this period.  These included messages on the young man in the tomb in Mark's Gospel, the healing of Jairus' daughter, the calming of the storm on Galilee and the Letter to the Church at Ephesus in Rev 2.  In September 1975 the minister whom we were considering as a potential replacement was invited to spend a few days at the church and on the Sunday he preached on the text from Genesis 50:20, 'you meant it for evil but God meant it for good'.  I can remember much of that sermon too.

In fact in the 1990's I preached a sermon on the Letter to the Church at Ephesus' which was little more that a direct plagiarising of what I could remember of the sermon I heard early in the 1970's.  I was surprised at how much more came to mind as I prepared.

So while I have forgotten much of what was said in the sermons I heard well over 40 years ago, I can confidently say that what I remember is correct and, if I committed them to paper (as I did the Ephesus sermon), what I did write would be accurate and a true reflection of the original teachings.

How much more detail would I still have if I had been asked to share on a regular basis my recollections of what these two men preached had I been requested to do so on a regular basis from the time immediately following their moves to other churches?

So I have no problem with the accuracy of the NT writings given a time of writing some 40-50 years after the event.

Needless to say that I am of the view that the great majority of the NT documents were written well within that time frame with only the 4th gospel being a bit later. 

[Shaker]

But whether or not people believe in Hannibal has no bearing on modern society.

But we know pretty much what they would try to do and what power, influence and control they would seek over people's lives because of believing in Hannibal, if Hannibal had credited to him a similar constellation of beliefs as Jesus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So we have you someone with a love of interrogation, flicking out assertions like "street conjuror " and is above or can't justifying them. Let's try you with another.

Your first time was a mistake; now you're lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Avoidance Boy,

And would you say that the disciples also believed their experience of the resurrected?

Quite possibly. It's not something they could have known to be true, but the story may well have been persuasive for them nonetheless.

[DaveM]

I'm always happy to learn more.

But don't forget I am a professional scientist and an academic - examining evidence and the arguments that arise from that evidence is what I do for a living. I'm pretty good at seeing the wood for the trees.

I am well aware of that and fully recognize and respect the skills you possess and demonstrate on this forum.  Perhaps the more so because, although I did not pursue a career in the academic world, I do have a PhD in Chemistry and later a B degree in economics when my career path in industry took me into the position of a Business Analyst.

[ekim]

So while I have forgotten much of what was said in the sermons I heard well over 40 years ago, I can confidently say that what I remember is correct and, if I committed them to paper (as I did the Ephesus sermon), what I did write would be accurate and a true reflection of the original teachings.

If you heard the teachings in another language, say, Aramaic, would you be confident in writing a similarly accurate and true reflection many years later in English?

[bluehillside Retd.]

DaveM,

I first walked into the church where I still worship on the first Sunday of September 1969, some 48 years ago.  I seem to recollect that it was Sunday 7th.  The subject of the sermon was a look at earthquakes found in the Scriptures and what we could learn and apply from them.  I can still remember quite a bit of the detail.  The minister moved to another church at the end of 1975 and I also have very clear recollections of aspects of many other of his sermons during this period.  These included messages on the young man in the tomb in Mark's Gospel, the healing of Jairus' daughter, the calming of the storm on Galilee and the Letter to the Church at Ephesus in Rev 2.  In September 1975 the minister whom we were considering as a potential replacement was invited to spend a few days at the church and on the Sunday he preached on the text from Genesis 50:20, 'you meant it for evil but God meant it for good'.  I can remember much of that sermon too.

In fact in the 1990's I preached a sermon on the Letter to the Church at Ephesus' which was little more that a direct plagiarising of what I could remember of the sermon I heard early in the 1970's.  I was surprised at how much more came to mind as I prepared.

So while I have forgotten much of what was said in the sermons I heard well over 40 years ago, I can confidently say that what I remember is correct and, if I committed them to paper (as I did the Ephesus sermon), what I did write would be accurate and a true reflection of the original teachings.

How much more detail would I still have if I had been asked to share on a regular basis my recollections of what these two men preached had I been requested to do so on a regular basis from the time immediately following their moves to other churches?

So I have no problem with the accuracy of the NT writings given a time of writing some 40-50 years after the event.

Needless to say that I am of the view that the great majority of the NT documents were written well within that time frame with only the 4th gospel being a bit later.

Just out of interest, what though if your perfect recollection of the sermon included remembering that he'd claimed to have seen on the way to the church a unicorn pooping glitter? What relevance would the quality of your memory have to the veracity of the story you were remembering?

Memory is an important issue here - especially when they're passed from person to person – but the more substantive one is the unknowability of the original claim. Even if in all the re-telling the story had been repeated with absolute accuracy and with no embellishments from those with a vested interest in bigging it up, the story would still be "30 years ago Fred said he saw a bloke alive then dead then alive again", which is something Fred could not have known to be true given the tools and knowledge available to him. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Avoidance Boy,

Quite possibly. It's not something they could have known to be true, but the story may well have been persuasive for them nonetheless.

Since the disciples I mention are the twelve minus Jesus and other disciples I am talking of those who believed they saw Jesus post mortem.

I'm therefore a little puzzled by your statement "It's not something they could have known to be true"and particularly
"But the story may have been persuasive for them". Can you explain what you mean here?

There experience is reported by them it seems as empirical particularly in the light of the doubting Thomas component.

[floo]

Since the disciples I mention are the twelve minus Jesus and other disciples I am talking of those who believed they saw Jesus post mortem.

I'm therefore a little puzzled by your statement "It's not something they could have known to be true"and particularly
"But the story may have been persuasive for them". Can you explain what you mean here?

There experience is reported by them it seems as empirical particularly in the light of the doubting Thomas component.

By the time the gospels were written the disciples would have been old men, or more likely dead!

[DaveM]

If you heard the teachings in another language, say, Aramaic, would you be confident in writing a similarly accurate and true reflection many years later in English?

Well if I consider my position in my own country (South Africa) I think the answer is an emphatic yes.  English is my home language and (I think - I hope) I can speak and write English fluently.  But I can also very comfortably conduct a conversation in Afrikaans and can write reasonably well in that language.  So by analogy if I had lived in the 1st century with Aramaic as my home language, I would have had little problem conversing and even writing in Greek, although perhaps encountering some comments on poor grammar here and there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Avoidance Boy,

Since the disciples I mention are the twelve minus Jesus and other disciples I am talking of those who believed they saw Jesus post mortem.

Or that someone else told one or some of them that he saw Jesus post mortem and the disciples believed that person, but ok…

I'm therefore a little puzzled by your statement "It's not something they could have known to be true"and particularly
"But the story may have been persuasive for them". Can you explain what you mean here?

I mean what I told you I mean but you just ignored. To have known with any certainty that someone was clinically dead and then alive again would have required methods and tools that just didn’t exist back then. However sincere an eye-witness may have been, and however accurate the re-tellings of the story he told you’d still have only a claim that he couldn’t have known to be true. The very best you could argue was that someone believed he’d seem the same person alive then dead then alive again.   

There experience is reported by them it seems as empirical particularly in the light of the doubting Thomas component.

Of course it isn’t. How could there be empirical evidence for something when virtually none of the tools of empirical verificaton were available at the time to do the job? What medical instrument for example could they have used to confirm that there was no brain stem activity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Avoidance Boy,

Or that someone else told one or some of them that he saw Jesus post mortem and the disciples believed that person, but ok…

I mean what I told you I mean but you just ignored. To have known with any certainty that someone was clinically dead and then alive again would have required methods and tools that just didn’t exist back then. However sincere an eye-witness may have been, and however accurate the re-tellings of the story he told you’d still have only a claim that he couldn’t have known to be true. The very best you could argue was that someone believed he’d seem the same person alive then dead then alive again.   

Of course it isn’t. How could there be empirical evidence for something when virtually none of the tools of empirical verificaton were available at the time to do the job? What medical instrument for example could they have used to confirm that there was no brain stem activity?

I notice you have two alternatives to the disciples believing they had a post mortem experience of Christ. Do you have any evidence of that.Anything written down?

As far as knowing if Jesus was dead it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.
Since death was perhaps quite a common experience I would have thought they would have quite a bit of expertise over death.

[ProfessorDavey]

I notice you have two alternatives to the disciples believing they had a post mortem experience of Christ. Do you have any evidence of that.Anything written down?

As far as knowing if Jesus was dead it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.
Since death was perhaps quite a common experience I would have thought they would have quite a bit of expertise over death.

Yet again you are using the same old faulty, un-corroborated, 'evidence'. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was clinically dead - why - well first because there simply isn't any (all we have is reports decades later that he was dead, which isn't really actual evidence of his death at all), and secondly because there could have been as there wasn't sufficient medical knowledge at the time to be able to ascertain the key elements of clinical death - specifically brain activity.

Now I'm not making this claim, merely stating a plausible possibility (think Okram's razor) - namely that Jesus was in a deep stage of coma but not actually dead, and that he came out of this coma 3 days later. This is massively more plausible than a genuinely dead man coming alive again after 3 days.

[ProfessorDavey]

... it is written down that his injuries were pretty, well lethal.

Really - perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think any of the reported injuries are likely to be lethal. Significantly unpleasant - yes; lethal - no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again you are using the same old faulty, un-corroborated, 'evidence'. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was clinically dead - why - well first because there simply isn't any, and secondly because there could have been as there wasn't sufficient medical knowledge at the time to be able to ascertain the key elements of clinical death - specifically brain activity.

Now I'm not making this claim, merely stating a plausible possibility (think Okram's razor) - namely that Jesus was in a deep stage of coma but not actually dead, and that he came out of this coma 3 days later. This is massively more plausible than a genuinely dead man coming alive again after 3 days.

There are several epistles and four gospels. That is evidence as would anything telling another story.
I'm interested in the word faulty. Faulty in what context? Careful now, the genetic fallacy seems to be following you about.

I think Jesus injuries were quite severe. Are you saying his injuries were exaggerated?
Again isn't that the sort of thing that would have been used by the Roman and Jewish authorities?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think any of the reported injuries are likely to be lethal. Significantly unpleasant - yes; lethal - no.

significantly unpleasant? Aren't you being a bit generous. Don't you mean they were a bit of an inconvenience?