|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I explained the problem with that and you seemed to have ignored it.
The sermon on the mount is a centre piece of Matthew, given that it's three whole chapters it has its own context. Tangle writes:
Yes, it is the majority opinion that has been assumed since about 1900 or so but it is becoming less so. The point being made is that Jesus never gave the sermon on the mount, it's a written literary discourse composed by whoever Matthew was, around 50 years after the supposed death of Jesus. It's based around Old Testament stories. Matthew never met or heard Jesus speak, he was writing propaganda 50 years after a non-existent event. This is not a marginal opinion, it's mainstream He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23159 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
GDR writes: Just wondering about miracles. I think we would agree that the Earth was once completely lifeless. Basically dirt in one form or another. Now, out of that dirt we have sentient life. I know we have the evolutionary trail but isn't the fact that life exists fairly strong evidence of a miracle? Yet, many here still deny it. You're repeating your same mistake of seeking evidence of God in things science cannot yet explain. This approach is a continuous retreat for religion because of constantly expanding scientific knowledge. Since we don't know how life began, how do you know it began in a physically impossible way and could only have been brought about by a miracle? How do you even know there is any such thing as a miracle? We certainly have no evidence of miracles, so why are you advocating for something you don't even know is a thing? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: Actually Bauckham doesn't say that. What he does say is that the S on the M was a compilation of things that Jesus said but is not a stand alone sermon. With the abrupt changes in subjects that certainly makes sense. I'll leave Percy to deal with that, but just on a point of fact relating to an earlier point, Bauckham says outright that Jesus did not give the Sermon on the Mount, it was created by whoever the author of Matthew was. Also Bauckham contends that the Gospel is either directly written by Matthew or more likely from material supplied by Matthew. ABE I thought I'd add this as written by Dennis Barton about 5 years ago.
quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
GDR writes: Yes, it is the majority opinion that has been assumed since about 1900 or so but it is becoming less so. Does ANY biblical historian - note historian, not theologian or apologist - think that the Sermon on the Mount was an actual speech?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
GDR writes:
He absolutely does! I just heard him say it debating with Ehrman. Actually Bauckham doesn't say that.(Abe See next post) You don't need anyone else to tell you, you can just read it, it's prose. It's been composed at a writing desk and worked on. Of course it's a composition!
Also Bauckham contends that the Gospel is either directly written by Matthew or more likely from material supplied by Matthew. Yeh, but most disagree with him, Matthew copied Mark and possibly Q about 40 years after Christ's death but you prefer a minority view just because it suits you. Look, any of these people can imagine any number of hypothetical scenarios and find reason to argue them. The simple fact is that there is no real evidence - none. If there was there woudn't be these daft arguments 2,000 years later. These guys have spent their entire lives studying everything in tiny detail and got used to composing scenarios that they can write a book on, but have forgotten what actual evidence looks like. This stuff is entirely hypothetical and unprovable. What we do know is how flaky the entire edifice is - anonymous writers writing decades after a supposed event. No eye witnesses, redactions, interpolations, forgeries and inventions. You've built a house on sand. Edited by Tangle, . 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18712 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
What caught my attention this morning is your phrase "staying in his field" referring to Dawkins but previously applicable to Ray Dalio (no Economist) Sam Harris (another pompous "ass" as you put it IIRC) and a smattering of "believers" who dared cross the line into History.
Perhaps I will begin with a question.
I can grant you the fact that an expert by definition is trained academically in the field of discipline related specifically to a category. Some categories would of course be
I am applying the same methodology that you applied to Ray Dalio. And I am not challenging you on your instincts for spotting a fox among hens (con among rubes?) You were right about Ravi. He was a con among rubes and many Christians were shocked that it was so. We could *not* deny the evidence in front of our faces, however, and chalked it up as a lesson learned. IIRC, back then I was defending Ravi (arguing with you) and scrambled around trying to find evidence in his favor. I found none. He faked his academic credentials. He bamboozled many religious leaders who were guilty of the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity and appeal to emotionalism and in retrospect, was the perfect con. His words were a quite well-tossed word salad and I knew it even back then. I did not trust critics such as you because I thought you were simply bashing the faith and were naturally biased against Jesus Christ. Sometimes I still feel that way, but am evaluating you in a more critical manner. Anyway...back to my point.
Theo writes: Whom would you list as the best spokespersons for "atheists" (as if atheism is a valid subgroup in and of itself As for Dawkins, he needs to stay in his field. He no spokesperson for atheists...![]() How on earth could one even be an expert in atheism? The closest I could come would be Matt Dillahunty, but my criticism of him is only that he sells books and makes a profession out of his argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Here is Bauckham saying that the Sermon on the Mount was is a collection of sayings made by the evangelists.
Start at 38 mins if that's all you want to hear, but best listen to the whole thing and even better listen to the first one in the series too.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18712 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.2 |
I listened to it at the 38-minute mark, but I am wondering why you promote this and why it means something to you for us to hear it. It *does* broaden my perspective, so I figure it can cause me no harm. I wish you followed the links and videos I provide as a tit-for-tat experience, but you guys are convinced I am but a loon!
![]() One thing stuck out: "Memories are no better in the ancient world than they are today...which is a valid point. Believers would retort that *important information* is always recalled whereas a "State Of The Union" address is as boring as Biden himself! (Or as loud and obnoxious as Trump! )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23159 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
GDR writes: I suppose that I see an atheist as holding their beliefs the way I hold mine. Yes I get it. I don't think that you'll agree with this but I see atheism as being synonymous with materialism meaning that there is nothing beyond the material. Is there evidence, (beyond that there is no evidence to support theism), in support of that position. Atheism is just an opinion about God, not a single group, club or organization. There's no unanimity of opinion regarding materialism among atheists who think about such things. My daughter's an atheist who never thinks about atheism or materialism. I think you're viewing yourself and your protagonists through the wrong lens. It isn't theists versus atheists but theists/fantabulists versus critical thinkers. Most critical thinkers understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Though there is no evidence of anything beyond the material, they don't conclude the immaterial doesn't exist. There's also the definition of the immaterial to consider. Isn't it the same thing as the supernatural or the divine? I'll use the word supernatural for the rest of this message. A critical thinker might say, "Because there is no evidence for the supernatural, it would be improper to categorically state that it doesn't exist. However, given the properties implied by the term 'supernatural' one would have to wonder how it would interact with the natural world. Wouldn't anything supernatural that could interact with the natural world have to be reclassified as natural? Doesn't anything truly supernatural have to remain forever undetectable by the natural world?" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23159 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Tangle writes: Here is Bauckham saying that the Sermon on the Mount was is a collection of sayings made by the evangelists. I think GDR agrees with you and that that's what he's saying at the top of Message 1578. He interpreted your claim in Message 1547 that "Bauckham says outright that Jesus did not give the Sermon on the Mount" as meaning that Jesus didn't say any of the things Matthew says he said. He didn't realize you were only saying that there was no such event as the Sermon on the Mount. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9632 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Phat writes: I listened to it at the 38-minute mark, but I am wondering why you promote this and why it means something to you for us to hear it. It *does* broaden my perspective, so I figure it can cause me no harm. I wish you followed the links and videos I provide as a tit-for-tat experience, but you guys are convinced I am but a loon! It wasn't for you Phat, it was for GDR - though you'd learn a lot by listening to all of it and the preceding one too. These are two accredited biblical scholars just flat out disagreeing with each other. Anyway, I said that Jesus never gave the Sermon on the Mount (as an example of how what we're generally told as laity about the gospels being factually wrong). I gave him the wiki saying that we should not see the SotM that way. He said that talked about Bauckham thinks he did. So that video at that timing has Bauckham saying that the SotM was not said by Jesus - it's a written by whoever Matthew was. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 733 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
You answered your own question.
... we need to nail down the definition of "expert" and apply that to the overall discussion regarding choosing a faith. I can grant you the fact that an expert by definition is trained academically in the field of discipline related specifically to a category. Phat writes:
Speaking for myself, I don't need a spokesperson.
Whom would you list as the best spokespersons for "atheists"... Phat writes:
One of our great Newfoundlander comedians, Mary Walsh, has a character named Marg Delahunty. The closest I could come would be Matt Dillahunty....Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 733 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
We're convinced you're a loon by what you write, not by the links you post.
... you guys are convinced I am but a loon! Phat writes:
Nonsense, of course. Believers would retort that *important information* is always recalled...Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23159 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
GDR writes: Percy writes: And outspoken evangelicals are impartial sources? Absolutely not. The point I was hoping would get across is that Carrier applies the scientific method to history and as such is a far more impartial evaluator of evidence than are evangelicals.
Percy writes: Carrier's approach is to look to the evidence, and that may be why Tangle mentioned him. Carrier's arguments focus on the evidence, or more accurately, the lack thereof that Jesus was a real person rather than an invention of Paul. ...as did Bauckham. No, Bauckham did not focus on the evidence. Bauckham is a Christian apologist while Carrier is a historian. But I'm just pointing out how different the two are. I definitely have no interest in applying the fallacy of argument from authority. If Bauckham has evidence supporting your position then present it here in the thread. Don't just claim he shows "how all the NT was written either by eye witnesses or by writers with a first person connected to the eye witnesses." (Message 510). We dispensed with that claim already, yet here you are a thousand messages later still pushing Bauckham.
Percy writes:
Yes, except that in all the other cases the movement died and there was nothing like the NT written about them Is the way we know of these other "messiahs", namely through multiple contemporary historical references, the same way we know of Jesus? Please describe these "multiple contemporary historical references" about Jesus. Previously you had conceded that there weren't any, that the earliest historian writing about Jesus was Josephus sometime around 93 AD. Definitely not contemporaneous, and the one accepted reference is actually to the stoning of James: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, and was resurrected, but all Josephus knows is that James who was stoned had a brother Jesus who was called Christ. If the gospels were true accounts then Josephus would have had a lot more to say, and so would a lot of others writing in the first century. But consider Menahem ben Judah. He was a contemporary of Josephus and an earlier leader of the Jewish Revolt in which Josephus also fought. According to Josephus he took Masada but died shortly after. We know all about Masada after that from Roman records. But nothing that Jesus ever did or said or that is a direct result of anything he did or said is mentioned historically anywhere. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: |
Tangle writes: People like Wright and Bauckham do just that. It is simply the fact that you don't find their arguments convincing. Everybody starts out with a bias including Carrier. Historians need to apply a scientific methodology to their work if they want to call what they do history. Otherwise what they're doing is theology and apologetics and that is mostly what we have.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025