Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1261 of 3694 (900961)
11-03-2022 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1260 by Phat
11-03-2022 6:04 AM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
It figures you would quote Richard Carrier. Richard Carrier is a hack sent by satan to discredit the Jesus of the Bible.
You have no idea how mad that sounds have you?
But of course, you will always believe the guy with academic credentials over any believer I can't say that I blame you, given your respect for evidence and scholarly appraisal.
Make up your mind, is he a satanic hack or an accredited academic and scholar?
The question that you might ask yourself honestly is this:
"If for some reason the human race fails itself once again and we find ourselves in trouble collectively once again, are you willing to take another hard look at what believers claim to "see"
I've taken several 'hard looks' at what you believe, I suggest you do the same before you waste the rest of your life too
I won't ever be able to convince you. I can't.
Of course you can, you just have to do it with reason and evidence not this psychotic theistic drivel you keep spouting.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1260 by Phat, posted 11-03-2022 6:04 AM Phat has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1267 of 3694 (900974)
11-03-2022 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1262 by Phat
11-03-2022 7:36 AM


Re: Tangles Honest Response
Phat writes:
It shows me that you want an answer that respects your desire for consensus with us.
That’s not what I want Phat - I’m not even sure what it means. What I want is a reasoned, evidence based discussion.
I don't have a lot of the answers that you seek,
That’s my point, you really should. You’ve based your life (and after-life) on this one guy but you can’t even demonstrate that he even existed!
but I do have a quote from Lee Strobel's book, A Case For Faith that resonated with me and may or may not be helpful for you.
You really don’t get it; a random, feel-good, theistic quote isn’t going to do it.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1262 by Phat, posted 11-03-2022 7:36 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1284 of 3694 (901030)
11-03-2022 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1283 by GDR
11-03-2022 6:29 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
As an outspoken atheist Carrier is hardly an impartial source.
I know, it's really unfair, a non-Christian historian researching and writing about Christianity. Progress hurts.
I was recently chastised by Percy by referring someone to a book. So that we can share the guilt, I'd suggest reading N T Wright, or John Polkinghorne's "Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the Bible"
You asked me how I knew that the Sermon on the Mount was never spoken by Jesus so I told you with references to a book, an online paper and a summary of the argument. Now you have to tell me what's wrong with it.
I've read a lot of stuff written by Christians - who are "hardly impartial sources" - there is almost nothing else. I suggest you read Carrier if you want a less biased view. His book 'On the Historicity of Jesus' is peer reviewed and fully referenced so you can check the sources yourself and you will have seen another side of the argument.
There were at least a dozen ending with the "Bar Kokhba" revolt in 135AD. Simon bar Kokhba was the last messianic claimant in that era. The point is that revolt, like all of the others ended with the Romans executing the leaders and the movement ending. Jesus is the one exception with the movement actually being invigorated after His execution.
There were in fact dozens of apocalyptic cults based on the fictitious Daniel prophecies that were supposed to come true in the 1st century CE. The only way the Christians could continue against the Romans was to invent the idea of a virtual victory through resurrection. It's a smart move. Or at least it would have been if it had any semblance of fact. It's all myth and propaganda. You can't even show that the main character in the story actually existed, let alone all the stuff that he was supposed to have done. You haven't even started.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1283 by GDR, posted 11-03-2022 6:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1311 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 5:04 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1287 of 3694 (901071)
11-04-2022 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1256 by GDR
11-02-2022 5:25 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
Phat writes:
There is external evidence from early material
You keep saying this but external evidence is incredibly weak, some say non-existent:
Josephus (ca. 37 - 100 CE; oldest Greek copy is 11th century though there is a 5th century version in Latin): The Jewish historian Josephus is claimed to be the earliest non-Christian to mention Jesus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93-94 CE) with the two references being referred to as the Testimonium Flavianum and the "Jamesian Reference". However, there is much debate regarding how much of the Testimonium Flavianum (if any of it) was written by Josephus[80] as there is no reference to it before the 4th century.[81][82] Moreover all of the experts who say some part of the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine are basing that conclusion on information way out of date (being 10, 20 or even 50 years old) despite discoveries that invalidate those sources.[83][84][85] While Carrier uses Bayes’s Theorem to argue that both passages are not from the hand of Josephus the consensus is that some part of the Testimonium Flavianum and all of the "Jamesian Reference" are genuine,[86] but based on Carrier's examples of Ned Ludd and John Frum even if the entire passage as we have it was written by Josephus it still would not show Jesus existed as a human being simply because it is too brief and there is no consensus on exactly what parts of the Testimonium Flavianum are actually from Josephus. Moreover it has been shown that the passage as we have it has a 19-point unique correspondence between this passage and Luke's Emmaus account.[87]
Tacitus (ca. 55 - 117 CE; oldest relevant copy is from 11th century): In his Annals (ca. 109 CE) Tacitus gives a brief mention of a "Chrstus" (generally read as "Christus" but in reality it could just as easily be read "Chrestus"), in a passage that shows evidence of tampering and contains no source.[88][89] Also, the entire section of the Annals covering 29-31 CE is missing: “That the cut is so precise and covers precisely those two years is too improbable to posit as a chance coincidence.”[72] His account is also at odds with the Christian accounts in The apocryphal Acts of Paul (c. 160 CE) and "The Acts of Peter" (150-200 CE) where the first has Nero reacting to claims of sedition by the group and the other saying thanks to a vision he left them alone.
Pliny the Younger (61 – ca. 113 CE; oldest copy is 5th century and only 6 of its 218 leaves still exist; next oldest copy is from 9th century[90]): Pliny the Younger was a Roman official who wrote innumerable letters. In one (ca. 112 CE), he references "Christians" (but not Jesus), and his "Christ" could have referred to innumerable other "messiahs" that various Jews were following. Furthermore non-Christian Jews would also fail Pliny's test[91] so at best Pliny didn't know the difference between Judaism and Christianity and at worst the passage has become corrupted.
Suetonius (ca. 69 – after 122 CE; earliest copy is 9th century): Suetonius, a Roman historian born in 69 CE, made two statements (ca. 112 CE) that are often presented as evidence of Jesus. The first falls into the Chrestus category; the second merely references Christians, not Jesus.
Thallus (unknown lifespan, claimed to be active in 2nd century CE): Thallus supposedly references (date unknown) a solar eclipse at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. This reference is, at best, third-hand quotation of a summary, and is not recorded in other historic records.
Phlegon (unknown lifespan, 2nd century CE; no works survive): Phlegon was a writer who recorded (date unknown) an earthquake, which apologists interpreted as referring to the horrors on the day of the crucifixion. Other apologists rightly trashed this interpretation.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki
In that link you'll also find a list of historians at the time who should have written about Jesus but didn't. Jesus was important enough to be crucified as a dangerous terrorist leader, his death was very public, surely at least one contemporary historian would have written it up. There's no mention in any Roman records either. And this is only about whether Jesus existed at all, nothing to do with whether the things he is said to have done happened.
...as well as by the rise of Christianity.
That's not evidence of anything except human gullibility and marketing. Millions believe in Mormonism but the entire Book of Mormon is known to be a complete fabrication.
As you know I contend that the Gospels were all written within 30 years with the possible exception of John. We have already had multiple posts on that in this thread.
​Within 30 years (of Jesus's death?) isn't terribly useful. The consensus is that the first Gospel, Mark, was around 70AD. It could have been 60AD - even that is 30 years after Jesus' death. (If we accept that Pilot killed him it was somewhere between (27AD and 36AD), so ok.
One reason for putting the date at 70AD and after, is that all the gospels except for John (which was the latest) make references to the fall of Jerusalem which was 70AD so couldn't have been written before.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1256 by GDR, posted 11-02-2022 5:25 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1430 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 5:35 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1290 of 3694 (901120)
11-05-2022 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1289 by GDR
11-04-2022 5:54 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR in post #1 said writes:
Firstly, I contend that there is only one cosmic intelligence that is responsible for our existence. It doesn’t matter what name you give that deity, it might be god, allah or zeuss. What matters is the characteristics or nature of the deity. As theists we all form our own view of the nature of our deity and that is an issue of faith. (For that matter everyone has a world view and live by some code whether they adhere to it or not.) My point is that it isn’t about choosing which deity that we choose to worship, but the nature of whatever deity we choose…
… Jesus said that we should “love our enemy”, “turn the other cheek”, “go the extra mile etc. He called us to love others and beyond that to love others sacrificially. That is the great commission. How then do you square that with the OT contending that Yahweh committed genocide, ordered His followers to commit genocide and even to have the community stone to death neighbours for ridiculous offences. YOU CAN’T. As humans we all look for “Blessed Assurance”. It is a faith. So then, is our faith in Jesus as God’s representative or in a literal reading of an inerrant Bible. It can’t be both.
GDR in post #1289 writes:
Maybe the only point I want to make to the atheists here is that Christians are in disagreement over many issues. Yet both Faith and myself are Christian even though there is a wide chasm over what we believe about our faith. But we eventually do hold to a common belief that God does care about us and wants us to care about others. Of course it isn't only Christians that can come to that conclusion.
I'm really confused about what you're trying to say.
It seems that you've abandoned everything in the bible apart from the nice stuff that you prefer to believe. You also add that it's not important which god you believe in so long as it has all these nice attributes.
Fairly obviously, preferring particular attributes for your god is not going to affect whatever attributes the god actually possesses but I guess it's harmless enough.
But all this leaves you is a general belief to live by the Golden Rule. Under that regime there is no need for all the paraphernalia of any particular religion; worship, preaching, scripture, beliefs etc etc.
It seems that under your scheme atheists get to heaven too to why the need for any religious belief at all?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by GDR, posted 11-04-2022 5:54 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1313 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 7:57 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 1331 by dwise1, posted 11-08-2022 11:44 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 1431 by GDR, posted 11-25-2022 6:33 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 1443 by Percy, posted 11-26-2022 6:55 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1302 of 3694 (901178)
11-05-2022 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1300 by GDR
11-05-2022 2:34 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
OK, nothing I can say will convince you otherwise
Of course you could! You believers just never get it. You could convince me with convincing evidence. I'm really easy to convince, just show me something convincing. We're not doing anything hard here, all we're trying to establish is if the guy in the centre of the story actually existed. It should be really easy, but it isn't because there is no actual historical evidence.
And it wouldn't matter if he had existed, the really hard bit is finding the evidence that the miraculous stuff he's supposed to have done actually happened and isn't just the story telling of the time.
so I'll turn to wiki, a non-Christian source.
Wiki - the website - is a non-Christian source, it's who posts there that makes it Christian or otherwise. Almost every biblical "scholar" is a Christian and most are not historians, they're theologians. Read some non-Christian stuff, get a full view.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1300 by GDR, posted 11-05-2022 2:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1348 by GDR, posted 11-10-2022 5:11 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1304 of 3694 (901186)
11-05-2022 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1301 by GDR
11-05-2022 3:10 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I went through that link and to understand it properly I needed not just luck but scholarly skills that I don't possess.
I did warn you, but I also gave you the summary, the crux being that the "speech" is a literary construct not an oral one. It's written not spoken.
That's the text but it's also out of its time, there are things referred to as history that hadn't yet happened - and it's not a prophecy.
I know this doesn't deal specifically with your point, but I guess we are back to what we believe.
The point is that it was never spoken. That's mainstream scholarship.. But sure, you prefer to believe something else.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by GDR, posted 11-05-2022 3:10 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1349 by GDR, posted 11-10-2022 5:22 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1312 of 3694 (901277)
11-07-2022 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1311 by GDR
11-07-2022 5:04 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
It is no different than A Christian writing on atheism. He is not an unbiased researcher, and holds views that there is virtually no agreement with amongst other non-Christian researchers.
I suggest you read him and arrive at a conclusion based on what you read, rather than dismiss him as biased on no evidence. Non-Christian professional historians researching the historicity of the bible are as rare as rocking horse droppings. The entire catalogue of biblical commentary has been the preserve of believers almost by definition.
So you want me to read an entire book by Carriere who is hardly impartial but yet you ignore the wiki article I sent you that does shows that Carriere's views are outside the norm for historical scholars.
I don't care whether you read about the subject you profess to be interested or not, I'm just pointing out that there is another viewpoint that you are discarding without reason. I did not ignore the wiki article, I've read it and several of the authors in it. Carrier's views are not surprisingly outside the Christian consensus, if they weren't he would be a Christian as is the overwhelming majority of the authors in the wiki. But they're not outside modern, independent analysis.
quote:
"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs."
Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction
The fact is, you have no facts. That's a problem because you should be able to show beyond debate that this guys actually existed, but you can't because convincing external evidence is totally absent. This was an important religious and political figure, but no contemporary historian wrote about him and no Roman records record him. Funny that.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 5:04 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1357 by GDR, posted 11-11-2022 5:43 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1314 of 3694 (901279)
11-08-2022 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1313 by GDR
11-07-2022 7:57 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
You seem to believe that the whole point of religion, and specifically Christianity, is to wind up in the good place.
I'm an atheist remember, I don't believe a word of this stuff! I'm just reporting what the vast majority of Christians believe and what all the churches I've ever been in preach. You know, all that “Jesus saves”, heaven and hell, fire and brimstone stuff?
I suppose that is important
It certainly seems so for every Christian and church but you and yours!
but IMHO that is not at all the main point of Christianity. Christianity is a calling on our lives to live lives based on love of the other, or the Golden Rule works fine.
That's a rule not restricted to Christianity of course. In fact it's universal.
The thing is yes, you don't need Christianity
So why waste all that time and effort praying and grovelling?
but, I know that in my pre-Christian days my priority was, (aside from my family which came first), promotion, getting an increase in pay, a better house, parties etc. That was what I got from the secular world.
That's what you got from the world! The world you live in is predominantly Christian. They built that world. Nothing changed except you got older.
I do find that as a Christian I'm less self focused, (got a long way to go though), than I had been. I am involved in projects with both my time and money that I wouldn't have been in without Christianity.
You've no idea what you'd be doing if you hadn't been 'born again'. I volunteer for all sorts of charitable stuff now that the modern pressures of establishing a career and bringing up a family are largely behind me.
As you seem to be focused on what happens next I do accept the possibility the belief that new creation is for all creation but, that does not mean that this life does not have an impact on our lives to come. I have no idea what that might look like.
Yes, but like those before you, you're making it all up to suit what you want to be true. It's non-biblical and non-taught isn't it?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1313 by GDR, posted 11-07-2022 7:57 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1358 by GDR, posted 11-11-2022 8:31 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1332 of 3694 (901397)
11-09-2022 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1331 by dwise1
11-08-2022 11:44 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
I wonder if a poll today would get the same results? The evangelical movement seems to have the edge these days and liberal religious views (or liberal anything) seem unfashionable?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1331 by dwise1, posted 11-08-2022 11:44 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1350 of 3694 (901537)
11-10-2022 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1348 by GDR
11-10-2022 5:11 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
We both know that there is no convincing evidence.
But you're convinced anyway. Weird.
But that apart, given that the story is that it was all done to save mankind, why isn't it convincing?
All we have is what is written and then we come to our own conclusions about the veracity of the account, by looking at other written material etc.
What we know about what is written is that it's mythology writ large. You come to your conclusion from prior belief, not, as you admit, on convincing evidence.
The article was not about Biblical scholars. Here is a quote where it is about "scholars of antiquity".

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure
The vast majority of 'scholars' accept Jesus as a historical figure. But then the vast majority (approaching 100%) are Christian. Also the vast majority of them are not historians, they're theologians. Of course Christians absolutely HAVE to believe that Jesus was real. If they didn't they could not be Christians.
When real, modern, objective, historians look at the actual evidence, we get a different story.
For the record, atheists couldn't care either way - it really doesn't matter to us whether he was real or not, what matters is whether he did the things he's said to have done. The fact that you can't even provide convincing evidence that he even existed at all, tells us most of what we need to know.
I have read a number of non-Christian authors such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Sagan etc.
None of those are historians. Get your evolutionary biology from Dawkins, get your polemics from Hitchins, but please, get your history from historians.
AbE Out of curiosity have ever read books by John Polkinghorne or N T Wright?
Polkinghorne is an excellent physicist and mathematician. His opinion about the historicity or otherwise of Jesus is as useless as Dawkins, Hitchins, and Segan's.
I haven't read Wright books, but I have read a lot of what he's written. To me, he's just another theologian parsing a Christian interpretation of ancient mythology in a way that suits his beliefs. How could it be possible for an ordained priest and ex-bishop, to be objective? His views on homosexuality should be a clue to how he sees his religion.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1348 by GDR, posted 11-10-2022 5:11 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1351 of 3694 (901538)
11-10-2022 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1349 by GDR
11-10-2022 5:22 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
I promised to get back to you on the Sermon on the Mount being written by Matthew after Jesus had been dead for decades.
This is from Dale Allison,' Studies in Matthew' and 'The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount' as used by Carrier.
"Allison shows that the Sermon on the Mount fits neatly within known rabbinical debates over how Jews could still fulfil the Torah after the destruction of the Temple cult. The general consensus amongst the rabbis was that good deeds now fulfil that (the Temple's) role (especially acts of love and mercy).That is essentially what the Sermon on the Mount says."
Allison says that the rabbis of the time said "Upon three things the world standeth, "upon Torah, upon Temple service and gemilut hasidim" (deeds of loving kindness). Allison says that this - "the law, the cult and social behaviour." He says that Matthew arranged the Sermon on the Mount so as to be "a Christian interpretation of the three classic pillars."
Carrier adds that he does this by simply assuming that the temple cult does not exist. "At no point does Jesus [...] explain what to do about temple sacrifice code in Levitucs or Deuteronomy.[...] In other words , it assumes the temple cult has already been destroyed. Which means this speech was written after 70CE. It does not come from Jesus"

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1349 by GDR, posted 11-10-2022 5:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1539 by GDR, posted 12-08-2022 2:42 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 1359 of 3694 (901583)
11-12-2022 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1357 by GDR
11-11-2022 5:43 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Frankly I don't have time to read his book.
I'm surprised, you seem to have time to read NT Wright, Polkinghorne, CS Lewis etc…
There doesn't seem to much on the internet about his specific polemic.
You're kidding!
Here is a non-Christian NT scholar, who does not believe in God, who rejects Carriers work in general.
Bart Ehrman
I bet you've not read any Bart Ehrman either. He spends a lot of time raging at the poverty of biblical scholarship. He thinks that Jesus was a historical figure but does not think that there was anything other than mythology about his life.
Here from Ehrman's blog is what he wrote in response to Carrier's response to his book. Ehrman to Carrier
Oh yes, these two don't get on at all. Don't you think it weird that there can be so many different views by professional historians about whether this Jesus character even existed, let alone whether he was a god? Doesn't this give you any cause for doubt?
Well, your hero Richard Dawkins doesn't agree with you or Carriere either.
Dawkins is neither my hero nor is he a biblical historian, whatever views he has on the existence of Jesus are irrelevant.
Firstly He was hardly important to the Romans. They crucified many thousands. Do we have a record of any other individual crucified by the Romans of that era, even as much as what we see in Tacitus. The Jewish authorities simply had Him executed and got Him out of the way as He was stirring up opposition to the Temple authorities, and would not have been the least bit interested in recording anything about Him.
Romans kept records of all sorts of administrative affairs - including executions. Contemporary historians wrote about what was going on at the time but he's absent from their histories. The fact is, you have no facts, just stories invented decades after the supposed death that grow in detail (and contradict) over time. Exactly like a myth.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by GDR, posted 11-11-2022 5:43 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1544 by GDR, posted 12-08-2022 8:52 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(2)
Message 1360 of 3694 (901609)
11-13-2022 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1358 by GDR
11-11-2022 8:31 PM


Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes:
Just wondering how you know that the vast majority of Christians believe that way.
Because I'm a Christian atheist, baptised and brought up a Christian, living in a Christian society. I attend births, deaths and marriage ceremonies, I'm listening to some idiotic Christian apologist on the radio now. They all preach the same message of Jesus saves, my religion is the one, heaven and hell, etc etc. They all chant the same prayers to the same gods.
Incidentally one of the leading, if not the leading New Testament scholars in the world is N T Wright. I know that you're not a fan but my beliefs are pretty much in line with his.
This is the problem. You've picked a set of liberal beliefs that you're comfortable with. Other Christians choose different beliefs from the same texts and fall in behind the apologists that support them. This is only possible because you have no actual facts, so whatever you prefer, you can find.
Wright is an Anglican bishop and a theologian, not an historian. He also does not believe in homosexual marriage and says he'll discipline any priest performing the ceremony. Are you with him on that?
I've made that point myself several times as an argument favouring of theism.
Yes, you keep repeating this error. The emotion of empathy is an evolved human trait found in all humans (and several other social species). Religion is not required.
Worship and prayer should give us hearts that our humble and thankful and then hopefully change our hearts to something more inclined to unselfish love.
That's the sort of embarrassing religious drivel that makes me cringe. You're wallowing in this stuff. If you want to do good, just do it. It's its own reward.
Christian scholarship has evolved enormously in the last 50 years. For one thing there is a lot more attention being paid to the 1st century world that Jesus lived in, and a lot more attention being paid to what is in the Scriptures because of a much more critical reading of them. People like Hitchens have been a huge help because it has caused people to consider more deeply about just what they believe. As a result, IMHO, the church is in the throes of another reformation which in many ways will be as pronounced as the one 500 years ago.
Again, you're only seeing what you want to see, talking to people that feel the same way and read the books that you agree with. The fastest growing Christian church are evangelicals, not liberal Anglicans. In Europe, the trend is away from religions altogether. The global child abuse scandals have opened many eyes. The reformation is towards no religion. But sure, if I could pick just one Christian religious cult to replace them all it would be Western Anglicanism - “mostly harmless” and you can believe almost anything or nothing much.
Again IMHO I would say that at some point you have been "born again".
Yes I'm sure you would. But it would be total nonsense.
You have moved away from a self absorbed life to one that is now more about serving others. Being "born again" is not about all of a sudden believing some doctrine or another, (although I agree that many Christians still think that way), but about having a heart that moved from one that is always looking out for number one, to having a heart that is looking out for others.
I just got older, financially independent and had less life pressures to deal with GDR, nothing more complicated.
Anybody can make the Bible say just about anything they want by taking some passage and going with it. As the OT stories of genocide show we can use God as an excuse for just about anything we want.
Yes, I believe we've been saying that for, well, ever here. It's evidence that the bible is mythology.
Again, IMHO, we should read the Bible as an ongoing narrative climaxing in Jesus as a Jewish story that tells of their progressive understanding of the nature of God.
And IMHO that's total nonsense. The bible is a series of ancient myths that have been redacted, edited, interpolated, copied, added to by unknown authors for political reasons over centuries. It's theology not history.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1358 by GDR, posted 11-11-2022 8:31 PM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1361 of 3694 (901611)
11-13-2022 7:07 AM


GDR writes:
I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
(I'm not sure why this post has appeared out-of-order upthread, but I plonked it here again so it doesn't get lost)

I promised to get back to you on the Sermon on the Mount being written by Matthew after Jesus had been dead for decades.

This is from Dale Allison,' Studies in Matthew' and 'The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount' as used by Carrier.

"Allison shows that the Sermon on the Mount fits neatly within known rabbinical debates over how Jews could still fulfil the Torah after the destruction of the Temple cult. The general consensus amongst the rabbis was that good deeds now fulfil that (the Temple's) role (especially acts of love and mercy).That is essentially what the Sermon on the Mount says."

Allison says that the rabbis of the time said "Upon three things the world standeth, "upon Torah, upon Temple service and gemilut hasidim" (deeds of loving kindness). Allison says that this - "the law, the cult and social behaviour." He says that Matthew arranged the Sermon on the Mount so as to be "a Christian interpretation of the three classic pillars."

Carrier adds that he does this by simply assuming that the temple cult does not exist. "At no point does Jesus [...] explain what to do about temple sacrifice code in Levitucs or Deuteronomy.[...] In other words , it assumes the temple cult has already been destroyed. Which means this speech was written after 70CE. It does not come from Jesus"

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024