2 of 195
2
Free Will (Merged)
Posted: 08 March 2006 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  196
Joined  2006-02-09

Jesus’ dad

Dougsmith:

You wrote: <Certainly the Gospels were written long after Jesus died, and were probably riddled with errors. It has been awhile since my class on early Christianity, but I think there were some other documents from around the same time ... again, by non-Christians, very skeptical, but that didn’t claim Jesus was nonexistent. They even said he had a father—a Roman—and gave his name! (I forget the name).>

The source of the information you are looking for is Origen.  He was a Christian and brilliant thinker around 190 ce who wrote a set of books titled “Contra Celsus.”  Origen had a very interesting history which included self emasculation and being stripped of the rank of Presbyter (spelling may not be correct).  He was also the head of the theology school in Alexandria at age 18.  Celsus predated Origen and was therefore closer to the time of Jesus.  But how much no one knows.

The name of Jesus’ father, given by Celsus, was “Pantera”, likely a Roman soldier.  Celsus’ work does not survive, presumably destroyed by the early church.  Origen cites Celsus’ work in a manner where he states what Celsus wrote and then critiques it and tells why it is not true.  Most big libraries, like those a major universities, have at least one copy of Contra Celsus.  It is interesting reading for a little while.  And then it becoms excessively redundant, over and over again, even repeating. :wink:  :wink:

The earliest gospel was Mark probably around 80 to 100 ce.  The book of Mark, in Greek, is really one long run on sentence with over use of the Greek connective “kai.”  All the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) seem to have used the same source, called “Q” which does not exist today.

Wes :D :D

 Signature 

Fairness is Justice

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2006 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Thanks Wes! I do remember reading the texts you mention ... I’ve probably even got them stashed somewhere around the house.

Interesting stuff ... also the politics of destroying the schismatic believers ...

:?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2006 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2006-02-09

Consider the source, and Free Inquiry to publish cartoons

I suppose I sound fresh and irreverant when I say this, but:
See what I mean? It’s all a product of very unreliable sources. Some of it has been lost, some of it was written by people who sound like they were capable of making some peculiar decisions, some of it was written without good punctuation (silly sounding, but a comma can change everything), and on this foundation rests the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the Moral Majority.
I know I make excuses for Judaism that cite torah as the mythology, laws, weights and measures, and military history of a people in exile who had writing, but it isn’t until recently that a Jewish state has been in a position to persecute anybody. By the way, as long as I am here, did you happen to notice the following:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny—prophetdrawings0308mar08,0,5379928.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
AP New York

Magazine to publish prophet cartoons

By CAROLYN THOMPSON
Associated Press Writer

March 8, 2006, 4:12 PM EST
BUFFALO, N.Y.—A magazine published by the science and reason-driven Center for Inquiry will publish some of the cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad that have provoked deadly protests among Muslims worldwide.
Free Inquiry’s April-May issue, to be released March 15, will include four of the drawings which originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, the magazine’s editors said Wednesday.
  Editor Tom Flynn said the magazine was acting in solidarity with several European newspapers which have reprinted the drawings, demonstrating a commitment to free expression and a free press.
Also driving the decision was the Center for Inquiry’s mission to promote freedom of inquiry “in all areas of human endeavor.”
“No religious teaching, community, or institution should be held immune from criticism simply because of its religious nature,” Flynn said.
Tens of thousands of people have massed in protest of the cartoons as recently as this past weekend. About 50,000 people, many chanting “Hang those who insulted the prophet,” rallied in the Pakistani city of Karachi on Sunday. In Turkey, about 20,000 protesters chanted anti-Danish slogans in the city of Erzurum, reports said.
Islamic tradition bars depiction of Muhammad to prevent idol worship, which is strictly prohibited.
Free Inquiry will publish with the cartoons three articles: one by Flynn tracing the controversy and explaining the decision; a commentary by R. Joseph Hoffmann, director of the Council for Secular Humanism’s Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, and a historic look at representations of the prophet.
Among the four caricatures to appear is one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse and one showing horns coming out of the prophet’s turban. Another cartoon, showing a Muslim male face with Islam’s star and crescent “is included as an example of how the collection’s less sharply focused entries fell flat,” Flynn wrote.
“As cartoons go, there’s certainly an enormous disconnect between their relative blandness and the furious response they have engendered across the Muslim world,” he wrote.
The decision to publish the drawings was met with “sorrow” in the local Muslim community, said Arif Desai, imam of the Islamic Society of Niagara Frontier in Amherst, where the Center for Inquiry also is headquartered.
“We feel sorrow, we feel hurt and insulted as these are very disturbing, insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad,” Desai said. “Obviously, we know and believe in freedom of speech, but along with freedom of speech comes responsibility.”
He said he did not anticipate any violent reaction, saying most Muslims, by now, have come to terms with the existence of the drawings.
Dr. Khalid Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, declined to comment on Free Inquiry’s decision without seeing what the magazine had planned.
However, Qazi on Feb. 28, issued a letter in response to publication of at least one of the cartoons by a weekly alternative newspaper in Buffalo earlier last month.
“Freedom of expression is an integral part of Islam as well as the other Monotheistic Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism and Christianity). The question is where the freedom of expression ends and media responsibility begins,” he wrote.
“We need to realize that the global village is like a packed theatre,” Qazi said. “Good judgment is required before one yells `fire’ even in the name of the freedom of speech.”
Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief at Free Inquiry, said the cartoons raised important questions about the limits that can be placed on freedom of expression.
“Freedom of expression is a precious liberty basic to our democracy, the protection of which, we believe, far outweighs the possible consequences from those who might be offended,” Kurtz said.
___P>
On the Net:
Free Inquiry: http://www.freeinquiry.net

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 March 2006 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: Consider the source, and Free Inquiry to publish cartoon

[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]I suppose I sound fresh and irreverant when I say this, but:
See what I mean? It’s all a product of very unreliable sources. Some of it has been lost, some of it was written by people who sound like they were capable of making some peculiar decisions, some of it was written without good punctuation (silly sounding, but a comma can change everything), and on this foundation rests the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the Moral Majority.
I know I make excuses for Judaism that cite torah as the mythology, laws, weights and measures, and military history of a people in exile who had writing, but it isn’t until recently that a Jewish state has been in a position to persecute anybody.

Well, the problem of “unreliable sources”, in all senses of the word, is the central problem of all organized religions.  They are based on sources which are themselves unreliable, and not self-correcting.

Science may not always be reliable, but it is self-correcting.

[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]
By the way, as long as I am here, did you happen to notice the following:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny—prophetdrawings0308mar08,0,5379928.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
AP New York

Magazine to publish prophet cartoons

 

Hadn’t seen that, and it doesn’t entirely surprise me that FI would decide to publish them. I am 100% for freedom of speech and expression, so certainly believe they have every right to print whatever they like, subject to normal legal caveats. But there is part of me that is also sorry they decided to do so, simply because I don’t see how printing the cartoons actually advances the dialogue here, even among nonbelievers. I’m hoping that they will include an incisive article with the cartoons which explains their thinking.

I guess what I’m saying is that on the one hand, they have every right to print. But on the other hand, nobody ought to be intentionally disrespectful and provocative just for the sake of it.

We’ll see.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 March 2006 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2004-06-30

free will, and existenceof jesus

It’s 3am so this’ll be short and off the top of my head.

Daniel Dennett gave two lectures here (Bloomington Indiana, Indiana U.) and is a great example of erudite, original thinker who knows how to keep an audience interested and entertained. I have five books by and about him on the way from Amazon (including one I’ve found I had ordered in 2003 and never read!). A quick way to get an idea of his work is to go to Amazon, insert his name in the search wondow, and click on the titles of his books (and related books—by critics and supporters) so you can read the precises and the reviews.

Re the existence of Jesus: we have associated with CFI Robert Price, whose books support the heneverexisted school of thought, and Gerd Ludemann, whose books claims he did but little real history can be found in the Bible. There is a guy named Kenneth Humphreys who has a website, jesusneverexisted.com, and who has just published a book entitled Jesus Never Existed. I’ve recently sent an email to Ludemann but haven’t received a reply as yet.

This is all I can do tonight. See ya later.

(Wendy: sent an email to the guy you found; no reply yet. Thanks for your assistance!)

 Signature 

I am 65 yrs old. I am perhaps best understood as Rev. Rupnow’s grandson, as he influenced me to think seriously and deeply. (Forgive me, grandpa, but m (matter) + e (energy) = E (Everything.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 01:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: free will, and existenceof jesus

[quote author=“wadealt”]Daniel Dennett gave two lectures here (Bloomington Indiana, Indiana U.) and is a great example of erudite, original thinker who knows how to keep an audience interested and entertained. I have five books by and about him on the way from Amazon (including one I’ve found I had ordered in 2003 and never read!). A quick way to get an idea of his work is to go to Amazon, insert his name in the search wondow, and click on the titles of his books (and related books—by critics and supporters) so you can read the precises and the reviews.

Dennett has a wonderful writing style and knowledge of science. IMO sometimes his arguments are unconvincing, but they do always make me think.

[quote author=“wadealt”]Re the existence of Jesus: we have associated with CFI Robert Price, whose books support the heneverexisted school of thought, and Gerd Ludemann, whose books claims he did but little real history can be found in the Bible. There is a guy named Kenneth Humphreys who has a website, jesusneverexisted.com, and who has just published a book entitled Jesus Never Existed. I’ve recently sent an email to Ludemann but haven’t received a reply as yet.

I’m not familiar with these writers ... they may all be excellent, but at least I would caution you that every major university has a religion department. Most of these departments employ non-religious professors, and early Christianity is something that is studied everywhere. If there were good reason to doubt Jesus’s existence it would probably be everywhere in the universities ... at least the non-Christian ones.

So I think there is a pretty strong prima facie argument on those grounds alone that Jesus existed. And I think as atheists/agnostics it is best to leave aside weaker arguments against Christianity.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 02:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2006-02-09

University depts of religious studies

I disagree. Just think about the numbers. On the Point of Inquiry radio show, there was a list of how many religious people there are (maybe it was Christians) compared with how many Muslims, and then how many people of no belief. There are SO MANY Christians, so they are the dominant influence in our culture. Of course they are well represented and powerful in our universities, and other institutions of higher education. Some of the universities ARE Catholic, ie Loyola, BU. Those schools are not going to teach that Jesus’ life may be a fiction. They are not going to support classes in atheism. What Daniel Dennett was saying was that religious education should include some component of Comparative Religion, as if that concept is not widely taught. It’s surprising to find out that every culture, all over the world, when they are separated geographically, develops its own explanations for why things are the way they are. I think if people learn that, it opens a path to recognition that Judeo Christian monotheism is one way to believe, and that there are others. Once that door is opened (excuse the mixed metaphor) it is more obvious that the one we’re used to is one of many gods, religious beliefs, origin myths. That doesn’t happen in religion depts; that happens in anthro.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 02:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: University depts of religious studies

[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]I disagree. Just think about the numbers. On the Point of Inquiry radio show, there was a list of how many religious people there are (maybe it was Christians) compared with how many Muslims, and then how many people of no belief. There are SO MANY Christians, so they are the dominant influence in our culture. Of course they are well represented and powerful in our universities, and other institutions of higher education. Some of the universities ARE Catholic, ie Loyola, BU. Those schools are not going to teach that Jesus’ life may be a fiction. They are not going to support classes in atheism.

I think you misunderstood my point. I am somewhat closer to this than many, because my cousin is a non-christian professor of religion at a major state university. I took a number of classes in religion from non-christian professors as well. What I’m saying is that study of religion during the Roman period (500 BCE - 500 CE let us say) is a VERY popular and well-understood topic.

What some appear to be alledging here is a sort of “conspiracy coverup” by believing professors, conspiring to suppress evidence of Jesus’s nonexistence.

I’m saying that’s nonsense. There are plenty of NON-believing, NON-christian professors who study the same topics. And further, there are plenty of liberal christian professors with integrity, who are open to any good evidence they find, wherever it may lead. (They are the sorts of people the right-wingers yell about when they yell about “liberals” in the universities).

If you like, eliminate the Catholic universities like Loyola (as you mentioned), Notre Dame, et cetera. That still leaves ALL the ivy league, ALL the major state schools, Stanford, and dozens of other very competent and non-indoctrinated places.

[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]What Daniel Dennett was saying was that religious education should include some component of Comparative Religion, as if that concept is not widely taught. It’s surprising to find out that every culture, all over the world, when they are separated geographically, develops its own explanations for why things are the way they are. I think if people learn that, it opens a path to recognition that Judeo Christian monotheism is one way to believe, and that there are others. Once that door is opened (excuse the mixed metaphor) it is more obvious that the one we’re used to is one of many gods, religious beliefs, origin myths. That doesn’t happen in religion depts; that happens in anthro.

I totally agree, except that it does happen in religion departments at the universities I am familiar with ... it should happen also at high schools and grade schools.

... I will add that Dennett actually said we should have mandatory classes in comparative religion in schools. I don’t think I agree with that. There is too much opportunity for mischief once “mandatory” religion gets its nose in the tent of public schooling.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 03:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  114
Joined  2006-02-09

Re: University depts of religious studies

[quote author=“dougsmith”]
What I’m saying is that study of religion during the Roman period (500 BCE - 500 CE let us say) is a VERY popular and well-understood topic.

The God Who Wasn’t There movie, and the scholars who appear in it, are suggesting that at various times, there have been many popular and well understood theories of reality, many of which are now known to be not real. Astrology is based on an idea of the stars and the universe that is all wrong.

What some appear to be alledging here is a sort of “conspiracy coverup” by believing professors, conspiring to suppress evidence of Jesus’s nonexistence.

Conspiracy implies intent. I think there are just alternatives that may not be explored in usual educational institutions, whether they are associated with religious institutions or not.

I didn’t think Daniel Dennett meant that there should be teaching BY religious bodies in public schools. I imagined he meant survey courses in comparative religion, as an aspect of history. What he meant, what he said, what I heard and what I thought are probably four different things. LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 03:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: University depts of religious studies

[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]The God Who Wasn’t There movie, and the scholars who appear in it, are suggesting that at various times, there have been many popular and well understood theories of reality, many of which are now known to be not real.

Weeellll ... that’s a weak argument. You could say that about anything.

I should withhold judgment on the film, since I haven’t seen it. But all I’m saying here is that if you’re arguing against Christianity on the basis that Jesus didn’t really exist, you’re setting yourself up for a very strong, well-documented and historically uncontroversial argument that he did. It’s a losing proposition. And you’ll have plenty of non-Christian professors arguing against you. What’s the point?

Better to argue that the Gospels are inaccurate and contradictory, that the miracles never happened, and that plenty of other self-styled “messiahs” were claiming similar things that Jesus did ... so he wasn’t somehow “special” in that time period.


[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]Conspiracy implies intent. I think there are just alternatives that may not be explored in usual educational institutions, whether they are associated with religious institutions or not.

Weeelll ... how do you know? I think you’d be surprised how thorough the investigations are in many religious departments. Many professors there are really historians, deeply interested in historical accuracy, and with a truly encyclopedic knowledge of the relevant evidence.

I wouldn’t jump to controversial conclusions without getting to know the research a bit more.

[quote author=“Elizabeth K”]I didn’t think Daniel Dennett meant that there should be teaching BY religious bodies in public schools. I imagined he meant survey courses in comparative religion, as an aspect of history.

Right—that’s what he meant. What I’m saying, though, is that once we get mandatory teaching of religion in any form in public schools, it’s just a matter of time before school boards push for “preferred treatment” of their local religion ... it’s just a matter of time before we get religiously orthodox teachers in the classroom denigrating all options except their preferred religion. And so on. Perhaps it could be made to work, but I would be wary.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: Not knowing what I don’t know

[quote author=“Anonymous”]
I’ll just say that as a non-scholar, I find the exploration of alternative explanations for accepted wisdom, even if it seems to contradict seemingly solid historical evidence, natural and consistent with scientific method.

Absolutely. But remember that scientific cranks do so as well: claiming to have perpetual-motion-machines, and to have alternative explanations in physics.

The problem is this: when you take issue with accepted wisdom in the sciences, it really is incumbent upon you to learn a little of the science in question to be sure that they don’t have good arguments against your position. The same is true with history.

A student in a history class gets an A for memorizing and integrating standardized information—not for arguing with the instructor. The instructors are teaching what is current information on a topic, from my third-person observations of my daughter’s education, even in the academic environment. I know that’s not the same as writing a dissertation exploring controversial new ground—but I wonder from time to time what new information about evolution and anthropology is being taught that has been discovered since the last classes I attended. I can see from research on the alpine iceman, Oetzie, that much has been learned that contradicts what had been thought just a few years ago about bronze age culture.

Here, though, you’re talking about how history or science is taught at the grade school or high school level, where the teachers are not necessarily cutting-edge researchers, aware of all the most recent advances in their science, or in history. Most university-level teachers are aware of the latest information in their fields.

Isn’t this one of the advantages of science, that it advances, changes what is accepted, as it goes? I thought the same might be true of new thought about so-called history of religion.

I am sure it is true in any responsible department of religious studies in a major (non-sectarian) university. But the issue here was with a very specific claim: that Jesus didn’t exist. I am not aware of any new evidence that supports such a claim. I could be wrong! But I would hesitate to make that the basis of an argument for rejecting Christianity.

I think I understand what you mean about encroachment on Dennett’s proposed religion survey courses by teachers with a bias. I was interested when my daughter was taking a class in the local community college in The Bible as Literature. I was in my Exploration of my Jewish Roots stage, and I was thrilled that the teacher was Jewish; in a 20 week semester, 18 weeks were spent on Old Testament. The purpose of the class, my daughter says, was to familiarize students with all the biblical references in our society. Sorta like Shakespeare. LOL

I had a similar course years ago at university. It was very interesting. IMHO the Bible should be taught as literature, alongside Homer, Gilgamesh, the Upanishads, The Tale of Genji, and Shakespeare.

:D

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 07:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2004-06-30

existence of jesus

Doug, I would like to ask you to be specific re: the many attestations to Jesus with which you have said scholars acquainted you, albeit some time ago. Humphreys describes many such attestations but makes a good case for none of them being creditable. I do not share your confidence in major scholars in major universities, I am afraid. You seem to feel that conscientious professors, including nonreligous ones, are so numerous and unanimous in their belief that a Jesus existed, that those who think otherwise are almost certainly mistaken. I have tried to guide you to Price and Humphreys and am willing to be guided to your evidences but until you have read Price and Humphreys and I have had a chance to read your sources I find that I must withhold judgment on this question.

The fact that Ludemann finds in the story of Jesus of Nazareth “a kernel of truth” (to use Humphreys’ phrase for the currently dominant view of scholars) must weigh heavily in favor of the theory that a Jesus existed. That is why I emailed Ludemann for his opinion of Price and Humphreys’ contrary approach. [Paul Kurtz is said to regard Ludemann as the world’s most emionent Biblical scholar; however, Price is a scholar in residence at CFI at Amherst. I attended a two week seminar at Amherst several years ago at which Ludemann was the instructor.] However, Humphreys devotes 22 pages (pages 263-285) of his book to his claim that Nazareth never existed and is solely the product of later Christian writers belief due to their misunderstanding…well, you read his discussion. He presents the story of Nazareth as one illustration of his thesis that:
        “Most people feel more comfortable with the ‘historical kernel’ approach [as opposed to the purely fictional character approach]. It is intuitively satisfying to think that someone was behind the towering legend. We do, after all, have Christianity, and it is hard to give credence to the idea that someone ‘just made up’ Jesus Christ and then managed to convinve anyone else to believe that he had lived and died….And yet, this ‘common sense’ approach, though convenient, is a trap, a misapprehension condoned and encouraged by the priestly cohorts[I asked Ludemann, in my email, if he felt he was an atheistic member of the priestly cohorts]....For them, the negation of that ‘fact’  has cataclysmic implications and therefore they resist that possibility with every means….No one “just made up” Jesus. If we step around the centuries of fabrication and glorification which informs everyone’s perception of Jesus Christ and closely examine the two hundred year gestation period of the current Lord and Saviour we can see a perfectly plausible and, indeed, convincing process by which , upon the legacy of earlier times and from piety and scripture alone, the Christian godman emerged into the light. Beliefs created the man; the man did not create the belief.”

Of course, I guess everyone realizes that this is a BIG subject!

 Signature 

I am 65 yrs old. I am perhaps best understood as Rev. Rupnow’s grandson, as he influenced me to think seriously and deeply. (Forgive me, grandpa, but m (matter) + e (energy) = E (Everything.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2006 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  268
Joined  2006-02-08

Re: existence of jesus

wadsealt,
Thank you for your post.
I agree with you that the evidence is not there. There is no “hard” evidence that Jesus ever lived. Since there is no hard evidence I would say that it is not a fact that Jesus ever existed.
Thanks again for your very interesting post.
Bob

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2006 04:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

Re: existence of jesus

[quote author=“wadealt”]Doug, I would like to ask you to be specific re: the many attestations to Jesus with which you have said scholars acquainted you, albeit some time ago. Humphreys describes many such attestations but makes a good case for none of them being creditable.

In all honesty his evidence is well over my head. He gives lots of quotations without citation, and I am not even close to being a Biblical scholar, which is what is needed in this case.


[quote author=“wadealt”] I do not share your confidence in major scholars in major universities, I am afraid. You seem to feel that conscientious professors, including nonreligous ones, are so numerous and unanimous in their belief that a Jesus existed, that those who think otherwise are almost certainly mistaken. I have tried to guide you to Price and Humphreys and am willing to be guided to your evidences but until you have read Price and Humphreys and I have had a chance to read your sources I find that I must withhold judgment on this question.

Fair enough, although I think anyone who wants to take issue with a subject and is not willing to accept the general scholarly consensus at nonsectarian universities is pushing a stone uphill ...

That said, I will repeat that I am no expert on Biblical criticism. Yes, I could go and try to read a bunch about the evidence, but frankly it doesn’t interest me.

Why doesn’t it? Because I find it a silly way of arguing. Who cares if there was one particular guy who is referred to in the New Testament, or if there is some concatenation of two or three? There will be no really conclusive evidence either way ... we will forever be going on a few scraps of quotes from people around the time, any of which can be interpreted in a few ways.

So I think this method of argument is wheel-spinning, and leaves a secularist in the position of seeming intransigent on evidence that other secular experts are not.

The better argument is the argument that the miracles didn’t happen, that the theology makes no sense, et cetera.

[quote author=“wadealt”][From Humphreys]        “Most people feel more comfortable with the ‘historical kernel’ approach [as opposed to the purely fictional character approach].....And yet, this ‘common sense’ approach, though convenient, is a trap, a misapprehension condoned and encouraged by the priestly cohorts[I asked Ludemann, in my email, if he felt he was an atheistic member of the priestly cohorts]....For them, the negation of that ‘fact’  has cataclysmic implications and therefore they resist that possibility with every means….”

This conspiratorial claim is just silly, and frankly casts some doubt on Humphreys’s rational abilities. Again, my cousin is a professor of just this sort of religion at a state university. I know other professors as well. None of them is even remotely influenced by the “priestly cohorts”. They aren’t even Christian. Some are atheists, or even Jewish.

The most I will grant you on this subject is that there is some academic controversy over whether Jesus existed. For myself, I couldn’t care less. I’m not a Christian, and I don’t follow his teachings. But it seems to me that the “common sense” approach that Ludemann outlines is the best one to suppose, at least for argument’s sake, until and unless secular scholarly opinion comes down firmly on the other side. (If it has and I just don’t know, then of course I will reorient my beliefs).

Again, better to argue against the miracles and the theological philosophy rather than get into an endless debate about interpreting particular scraps of writing.

:wink:

My 2.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2006 04:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15362
Joined  2006-02-14

BTW, I haven’t the slightest idea what all of this has to do with free will!

LOL  LOL

... as a result I’ve moved the “Historicity of Jesus” topic to a different thread, which is here .

Onward!

:wink:

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 195
2