Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Maeght]

I feel then you don't understand your own motivations to atheism or rather it would be un PC to express them.

Mad, bad or The son of God is a pretty good summary of possible positions.
What is your view of the dilemma?

So you answered a poipt you think Stranger really wanted to make rather than the one hhe did?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you answered a poipt you think Stranger really wanted to make rather than the one hhe did?

I dealt with his claim that to treat Jesus as a historical figure is completely unwarranted.It isn't.
I dealt with his reluctance at using the word mad....as a piece of contemporary political correctness.

[Maeght]

I dealt with his claim that to treat Jesus as a historical figure is completely unwarranted.It isn't.

He didn't say that though.

I dealt with his reluctance at using the word mad....as a piece of contemporary political correctness.

I wasn't referring to that.

[Stranger]

Mad, bad or The son of God is a pretty good summary of possible positions.
What is your view of the dilemma?

My view is that it's a pile of dingo's kidneys. Do you want me to explain again?

To repeat (and try reading what I say this time). The first massive problem with it is that, even though Jesus may have been an historical figure, to assume that the accounts we have of his life are wholly accurate, is a rather silly starting point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My view is that it's a pile of dingo's kidneys.

Douglas Adams quote.......I think I'm going to hhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllllllll....Yek.

[Maeght]

Do you recognise you mis read or misunderstood Strangers post?

[Stranger]

Douglas Adams quote.......I think I'm going to hhhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllllllllllllllll....Yek.

Saves you having to think, I guess...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My view is that it's a pile of dingo's kidneys. Do you want me to explain again?

To repeat (and try reading what I say this time). The first massive problem with it is that, even though Jesus may have been an historical figure, to assume that the accounts we have of his life are wholly accurate, is a rather silly starting point.

Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.

So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.

[floo]

Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.

So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.

As there is no evidence any god actually exists, as they all hide away instead of being upfront about their existence, it is highly unlikely Jesus was anything more than a mere human with charisma.

[Stranger]

Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.

So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.

Vlad, you are trying to piece together the origin of a religious cult 2000 years after it happened, based on documents that weren't written until well after the events and then selected for scripture, all by believers in said cult.

Do you not get that there might be one or two teeny-weeny problems with that? The stories in the bible may have very little to do with what actually happened.

Even if by some chance it is reasonably accurate, the trilemma is still bollocks because humans are simply more complicated than that. For example, being deluded and/or a liar doesn't make you incapable of ever saying things that are morally good - and might well be an advantage for attracting followers to a cult.

It's also not only atheists who can see the problems, plenty of Christians have dismissed it as well: Lewis's trilemma - Criticisms.

[Walter]

Why should we classify belief that the NT reflects Jesus claim to be the son of God as completely unwarranted? What might be unwarranted is more likely to be the claim that Jesus obtained historical note for something else. You seem to be in denial also that you have questioned his historicity.

So given that it is unlikely Jesus didn't exist and it is unlikely that he didn't achieve notoriety for his claim the trilemma is still pretty good.

'andles, do you come yo this board just to get a good battering because I cant see any other reason ?

you certainly aren't going to convert anyone with the arguments you propose . I ,for one, would change my view immediately if you produced any empirical evidence but you never do .

In your defence, no one else ever has either

[Spud]

Bullshit.

Ever heard of the Iliad?

Was the Iliad the only book you were thinking of? Yes, I've heard of it, but only read the first 190 lines. The bit where Apollo descends from Olympus and starts firing arrows at the Greeks reminded me a bit of the psalm where God descends from heaven in his chariot to help David when in trouble. The only difference I can see between them is in the identity of the deity involved (Yahweh or Apollo). What makes the gospels different is the claim that God became a man, who was seen, heard and touched, who healed the sick and had power over nature. So for example we have Jesus calming the storm, which could be taken for myth or legend, if there were not the added detail that he had just been asleep in a boat and there were other boats with them, after a day of preaching. Would you find anything like this in the Iliad? That seems to be what CS Lewis is getting at.

[Dicky Underpants]

Of course it collapses in the face of your anti-intellectual pro internet diletanteism. Argumentum ad patinatum turdum.

Lewis himself used an anecodote in "Surprised by Joy" about some 'sceptic' who affirmed that "this rising from the dead matter actually seems to have happened once". Maybe this 'sceptic' was some bloke down the pub, maybe he was an Oxford professor, but he was certainly a strange sort of sceptic. This argumentum ad anecdotem seems to have been quite influential on Lewis. Can't think why.

[Spud]

Bullshit.

Ever heard of the Iliad?

The other thing is that the Iliad is thought to have been written centuries after the events it was based on, so that at the time of writing the supernatural events that embellish it obviously couldn't be confirmed by living eyewitnesses. The gospels however contain numerous references to living eyewitnesses who could be questioned by the first readers. Eg Jairus, Alphaeus, Simon of Cyrene, or even the Ethiopian eunuch from Acts 8, who was an important Egyptian official and supposedly witnessed 'the disappearance of Philip'. Paul sums it up in 1 Corinthians 15:6: "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

[wigginhall]

But you often get this conflation (and confusion) between historic stuff and miraculous stuff.   It may be that parts of the gospels and other Bible books are historically accurate - thus, many historians accept that there was a non-miraculous Jesus figure, a kind of Jewish healer/prophet figure, and there were quite a few of these at the time.   However, this does not then leach out onto miraculous stuff.    You can drawn an analogy with Caesar, who was definitely a historical  figure - but do we then agree that he was a god?   Not usually. 

[Spud]

The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.

If Jesus didn't do the miracles, then why don't we find books or letters denying them: say, an interview with blind Bartimaeus, still blind despite the Christians claiming he'd been healed. Instead we find a lot of pseudogospels which were written in the centuries after Christ, some with good intentions, some with bad. These read more like legend, and were excluded from the new testament canon because they were not eyewitness testimony or based on such.

[Shaker]

The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.

500 points, folks!

[floo]

The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.

If Jesus didn't do the miracles, then why don't we find books or letters denying them: say, an interview with blind Bartimaeus, still blind despite the Christians claiming he'd been healed. Instead we find a lot of pseudogospels which were written in the centuries after Christ, some with good intentions, some with bad. These read more like legend, and were excluded from the new testament canon because they were not eyewitness testimony or based on such.

Oh come on, claims are made about a lot things, which aren't credible. The Benny Hinn guy has claimed his healing scam has made amputated limbs grow back!

[Gordon]

The difference is that Caesar was deified despite there being no claims to him performing miracles. Jesus was deified because of the claims and because the claims hadn't been refuted.

I'm seriously worried for the welfare of the NPF: it has taken quite a battering of late.

If Jesus didn't do the miracles, then why don't we find books or letters denying them: say, an interview with blind Bartimaeus, still blind despite the Christians claiming he'd been healed.

Might it be because those writing the stories about Jesus were biased? How do you even know that this Bartimaeus even existed or, if he did, that he was blind, and even then that the the story about him being healed isn't propaganda for Jesus?

There are clear risks of mistakes and lies here that you'd have to assess - so have you?

Instead we find a lot of pseudogospels which were written in the centuries after Christ, some with good intentions, some with bad. These read more like legend, and were excluded from the new testament canon because they were not eyewitness testimony or based on such.

On what basis can you be sure that anything that was included in the NT was eye-witness testimony or was based on eye-witness testimony - even if it was, which can't be known, how would you resolve the risk that this testimony could include mistakes or lies?

[floo]

People can be very gullible and because they want something to be true will claim they have experienced it, like those who said they had seen the 'Angel of Mons' after a Welsh author had created the story and it was published in a London newspaper!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, you are trying to piece together the origin of a religious cult 2000 years after it happened,

I think you are mistaking me for one of those Jesus myth guys.

[Stranger]

I think you are mistaking me for one of those Jesus myth guys.

So, you're not a Christian and you don't agree with Lewis after all?     

[Nearly Sane]

So, you're not a Christian and you don't agree with Lewis after all?     

er I think that Vlad's quotemine was to imply that you thought he was a mythicist. Now fair enough even with his quotemine that makes no sense but this is Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, you're not a Christian and you don't agree with Lewis after all?     

Do you know who the Jesus mythers are? They are people who will only accept the histories of people who come centuries after Christ......chiefly themselves.

I think Jesus has been mainstream history for years as have his claims of divinity. To revisit the issue in the way JM's do smacks of desperation.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you know who the Jesus mythers are? They are people who will only accept the histories of people who come centuries after Christ......chiefly themselves.

I think Jesus has been mainstream history for years as have his claims of divinity. To revisit the issue in the way JM's do smacks of desperation.

Jesus divinity, isn't mainstream history because as we have covered multiple times, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.