More on the gospels.

[Roses]

The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.

Spud you seem pretty gullible!

[ekim]

The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.

... and yet the people chose Bar-Abbas, a robber as opposed to a miracle worker.  It makes you wonder.

[jeremyp]

The fact of the matter is, the gospels ... were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus.

This is something you haven’t shown to be true yet.

If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.

They have been refuted many times. Have you read any of the posts on this message board?

As for more contemporary refutations, what research have you done to show that none exist or ever existed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

The fact of the matter is, the gospels record many miracles and were written within the lifetimes of the people who met Jesus. If the gospels were mistaken, they would have been refuted.

That’s not something you can know to be true. If someone thought he saw something that was written down decades later after numerous re-tellings and some translations along the way, unless the eventual authors then went back to find the originators to ask them whether they still think they saw what they thought they saw all those years ago the story would be unchanged. And even if they did to do that and even if the original witness still believed that he saw what he thought he saw, still you’d have all the problems of genuine error etc.

Try this:

1. At 11.30 am a driver reports seeing a backpacker walking on the hard shoulder of the M25.

2. At 11.35 the police responder passes on the message that there’s an alpaca walking along the motorway.

3. At 11.40 the police car that’s been notified spends half an hour looking, but can’t find the damn llama anywhere.

And that’s all in ten minutes!

[Spud]

Really, have you seen how easy it is for Trump to get away with telling porkies. He is frequently refuted and yet some people believe him.

I see naïve people. Everywhere.

Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though. This is about were the disciples mistaken. How about mistaken British intelligence on  WMD? That was refuted because they couldn't find it. Sure, people believed it to begin with, but not when it had been investigated. I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.

[Roses]

Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though. This is about were the disciples mistaken. How about mistaken British intelligence on  WMD? That was refuted because they couldn't find it. Sure, people believed it to begin with, but not when it had been investigated. I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.

If Jesus had done all that was claimed for him, how come the Jews are still waiting for their messiah to put in an appearance? It would appear that only his faithful followers thought he was the big cheese, even his own family were sceptical.

[Gordon]

Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though.

We know that some, in support of their cause, are very resilient and are prepared to suffer or die: even so, had they been mistaken, or had been lied to, they might still have genuinely believed in what they viewed as being the truth - but that conviction isn't evidence that what they believed, and however sincerely or doggedly they believed it, was indeed true.

This is about were the disciples mistaken. How about mistaken British intelligence on  WMD? That was refuted because they couldn't find it.

Being mistaken about ordnance and being mistaken about apparent miracles aren't quite the same thing though.

Sure, people believed it to begin with, but not when it had been investigated. I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.

So, what methods did these 'early readers and witnesses' use to scrutinise so as to rule out the risks of mistake or lies, and just how robust and independent of bias were these methods?

[Spud]

... and yet the people chose Bar-Abbas, a robber as opposed to a miracle worker.  It makes you wonder.

If you believe that part of the story, presumably you believe that he was very popular with the crowds and that it was the authorities who hated him. And that he didn't obey all their Mishna laws, or lead a revolt against the Romans?
I suppose the reason the majority view now is that it's not true, is due to his not being physically present any longer.

Spud,

That’s not something you can know to be true. If someone thought he saw something that was written down decades later after numerous re-tellings and some translations along the way, unless the eventual authors then went back to find the originators to ask them whether they still think they saw what they thought they saw all those years ago the story would be unchanged. And even if they did to do that and even if the original witness still believed that he saw what he thought he saw, still you’d have all the problems of genuine error etc.

Try this:

1. At 11.30 am a driver reports seeing a backpacker walking on the hard shoulder of the M25.

2. At 11.35 the police responder passes on the message that there’s an alpaca walking along the motorway.

3. At 11.40 the police car that’s been notified spends half an hour looking, but can’t find the damn llama anywhere.

And that’s all in ten minutes!

I like your example. If you apply that to Jesus, you find a similar thing happened. The four canonical gospels are much more down to earth and believable - like the sighting of the backpacker. Then a century or so later you find whacky miracle stories like turning an acorn into a mountain - maybe a corruption of something over time? A bit like a llama walking down the side of a motorway?

As for being mistaken: either you see holes in someone or you don't. Seems fairly black and white with no room for mistakes (Luke 24:39)

[Roses]

If you believe that part of the story, presumably you believe that he was very popular with the crowds and that it was the authorities who hated him. And that he didn't obey all their Mishna laws, or lead a revolt against the Romans?
I suppose the reason the majority view now is that it's not true, is due to his not being physically present any longer.
I like your example. If you apply that to Jesus, you find a similar thing happened. The four canonical gospels are much more down to earth and believable - like the sighting of the backpacker. Then a century or so later you find whacky miracle stories like turning an acorn into a mountain - maybe a corruption of something over time? A bit like a llama walking down the side of a motorway?

As for being mistaken: either you see holes in someone or you don't. Seems fairly black and white with no room for mistakes (Luke 24:39)

Islamic suicide bombers firmly believe in their faith and are prepared to die for it. 

[ekim]

If you believe that part of the story, presumably you believe that he was very popular with the crowds and that it was the authorities who hated him. And that he didn't obey all their Mishna laws, or lead a revolt against the Romans?  I suppose the reason the majority view now is that it's not true, is due to his not being physically present any longer.

I don't think that there is any way of being certain about the stories attributed to Jesus.  My guess is that he was initiated into the same Jewish sect as John the Baptist and became a temporary Nazirite and his teachings were seen as heretical by those of the Synagogue who were traditionalists and saw it as a threat to their authority, particularly as he was want to criticise them..  I doubt whether it would have been difficult for them to organise a mob to choose Bar-Abbas.  The problem I see, that the doctrine of Christianity has, is that it is heavily dependant upon the cult status of Jesus rather than upon what he attempted to teach.  If the focus was upon the teachings, it wouldn't matter who uttered them as long as they worked for the followers.  Perhaps one day, somebody will discover some manuscripts written in Aramaic at the time of his ministry rather than at the time the early church was trying to organise itself.

[jeremyp]

Yes Trent. If threatened with serious enough punishment, like flogging, I'm sure he would admit to lying, though.

If he did, what makes you think the confession would have been recorded? For example, it is traditional to believe that Peter and Paul both met their ends during Nero's persecution of Christians following the Great Fire of Rome. Since Nero's alleged motivation was to scapegoat the Christians for the fire, why would he care if they went to their deaths screaming that it was all a lie?

I think it is safe to assume that the gospels would have been scrutinized by early readers and witnesses questioned, to find out if, as all four record, loads people were healed by Jesus.

How would somebody reading the gospels in Rome, Alexandria or Antioch verify the healing of an unnamed person from thirty years before in Galilee?

[Maeght]

Not even John 20:4?
The likelihood of that is also zero, as most of them were martyred, and people don't die for something they know to be a lie.

All the possible explanations, have likelihoods of zero.

What is the evidence for them being martyred?

[Spud]

Islamic suicide bombers firmly believe in their faith and are prepared to die for it.

The point here though is that people don't die for something they know was made up.

[Gordon]

The point here though is that people don't die for something they know was made up.

Nobody said they did though: that they sincerely believed whatever motivated them doesn't imply that whatever motivated them was true.

Can you see the difference yet?

[Spud]

Nobody said they did though: that they sincerely believed whatever motivated them doesn't imply that whatever motivated them was true.

Can you see the difference yet?

I was referring to the difference between someone who believes something to be true and someone who knows it is made up. The first may die for his cause but the second will most likely not.

Back to the risk of 'mistakes'- if someone says they saw and felt holes in someone's hands and feet, how likely is this to have been mistaken, especially when someone else says he saw and touched the same holes, including a wound in the person's side?

[Gordon]

I was referring to the difference between someone who believes something to be true and someone who knows it is made up. The first may die for his cause but the second will most likely not.

The second aren't an issue though: with regard to the first, nobody is saying that early Christians weren't convinced about Jesus, but that they were doesn't mean that what they were convinced of was true,

Back to the risk of 'mistakes'- if someone says they saw and felt holes in someone's hands and feet, how likely is this to have been mistaken, especially when someone else says he saw and touched the same holes, including a wound in the person's side?

So the story goes, Spud, but the underlying issue isn't that Jesus wasn't injured, and if he was crucified then he would have been injured, but that he was dead but didn't stay dead: that is a remarkable claim that would need more that anecdotal accounts derived from possibly biased people.

[Anchorman]

Islamic suicide bombers firmly believe in their faith and are prepared to die for it. 

   




Sweeping statement. Many 'radical' suicide bimbers were radicalised in prisons, with little or no actual instruction in Islam, according to 'mainstream' Islamic scholars. What they had was a garbled politicised embellished account of Islam , a bit like the Gnostics' distorted agenda in the third century.

[jeremyp]

   
Sweeping statement. Many 'radical' suicide bimbers were radicalised in prisons, with little or no actual instruction in Islam, according to 'mainstream' Islamic scholars. What they had was a garbled politicised embellished account of Islam , a bit like the Gnostics' distorted agenda in the third century.

That doesn’t actually refute the point. “Their faith” doesn’t have to be mainstream Islam. It doesn’t matter whether the story is mainstream Islam, some corrupt version of Islam or Jesus being resurrected, people being prepared to die for it is not good evidence for its truth.

[Roses]

Sweeping statement. Many 'radical' suicide bimbers were radicalised in prisons, with little or no actual instruction in Islam, according to 'mainstream' Islamic scholars. What they had was a garbled politicised embellished account of Islam , a bit like the Gnostics' distorted agenda in the third century.

Many radicalised Christians have very little idea about the Bible, they pick out the bits which appear to support their extremist version of that faith.   

[Spud]

That doesn’t actually refute the point. “Their faith” doesn’t have to be mainstream Islam. It doesn’t matter whether the story is mainstream Islam, some corrupt version of Islam or Jesus being resurrected, people being prepared to die for it is not good evidence for its truth.

If a Muslim suicide bomber bases his actions on the belief that Muslims are oppressed by the group he is attacking (eg Western democracy), he may be right that they are being oppressed, even though his retaliation is wrong. So the point still stands that people who suffer or die for a cause do so only if they believe the cause is not something made up.

[Roses]

If a Muslim suicide bomber bases his actions on the belief that Muslims are oppressed by the group he is attacking (eg Western democracy), he may be right that they are being oppressed, even though his retaliation is wrong. So the point still stands that people who suffer or die for a cause do so only if they believe the cause is not something made up.

But that still doesn't mean they are correct in their belief.

[Spud]

The second aren't an issue though:

One of the risks you said needed to be assessed was the risk of lies.

with regard to the first, nobody is saying that early Christians weren't convinced about Jesus, but that they were doesn't mean that what they were convinced of was true,

So the story goes, Spud, but the underlying issue isn't that Jesus wasn't injured, and if he was crucified then he would have been injured, but that he was dead but didn't stay dead: that is a remarkable claim that would need more that anecdotal accounts derived from possibly biased people.

Were NASA and Neil Armstrong mistaken when they claimed they had landed on the moon? They tell us they went in a spaceship which took a certain time to get there, and that there was reduced gravity there. That they were mistaken about where they landed is not a credible interpretation of their claim: either they did land on the moon or were making the story up. It seems the gospels give specifics about why they thought Jesus was dead but didn't stay dead. That he was merely injured or that what they thought was him alive again was really a hallucination, is not a credible interpretation of their accounts. Therefore they must have been deliberately making it up, or, Jesus really did rise from the dead.

[Gordon]

If a Muslim suicide bomber bases his actions on the belief that Muslims are oppressed by the group he is attacking (eg Western democracy), he may be right that they are being oppressed, even though his retaliation is wrong. So the point still stands that people who suffer or die for a cause do so only if the cause is not something made up.

Nope: the problem here, Spud, is that you are basing your argument here primarily on political conflict, and even allowing that the conflict is underpinned by religion the bomber may genuinely feel that their religious community is being oppressed, and that there are examples of this oppression that in their view justifies their actions.

Nobody is arguing that those prepared to kill, or who are killed, in relation to a cause don't sincerely believe that this cause is true or just: the issue you seem unable to grasp is that their sincere beliefs aren't confirmation that what they sincerely believe is actually true or can be justified. 

[Spud]

But that still doesn't mean they are correct in their belief.

It's actually a fair indication that they are correct. Read about how the Crusaders slaughtered all the Muslims in Jerusalem in the 11th century, or the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, or the killing of innocent Muslims in Afghanistan by US forces. Of course that doesn't justify them being a suicide bomber

[Spud]

their sincere beliefs

With regard to Muslims being oppressed

aren't confirmation that what they sincerely believe is actually true or can be justified.

Their actions are a strong indicator that Muslims are being oppressed.