My Take On Jesus

[Razor]

So we are back to where we were. Your first two examples of gaining arational knowledge are, by your own admission, bad ones. Want to go for a third? Surely, you can provide something verifiable to demonstrate what is a bedrock of your argument?

Whoa. I didn't say that the Duckphup Effect was bad. I simply said I needed Duckphup to validate it. When Duckphup appears, he will explain all, unless he cops out. I maintain that it is a real phenomenon and that it supports my argument. Until he shows up (and Oldskeptic has summoned him) I will simply put this portion of the argument on hold. The motion is tabled.

Merely becuase one person has relayed it to you? With no further questioning or evidence required? One person makes a claim ergo it is real?

Surely you can see you are implying you set a tremendously low standard of evidence for accepting things as fact?

[Feck]

My take on Jesus is that he was a Jewish nationalist and a fundamentalist .When Paul went and told "christs " family about his revelation they told him to go tell it to the Gentiles .... without the spin he put on it later to try and claim that he had been given the authority to teach the whole world about "Christ" they basically told him to fuck off.

[Bruce Burleson]

Bruce,

A vision of Jesus is not a personal eyewitness of Jesus in the flesh. It was a vision. You as a beleiver, would call it a spiritual event.

He never saw Jesus, never touched him, never got that close. Interesting, because Paul would have been able to, as his contemporary. He apparently was too busy killing christians to care about Jesus at all. Some zealot.

Bruce, your 2 pronged argument falls flat, because you claim Paul as an eyewitness to Jesus.

Get any scholar, or for that matter anyone to back you up on that, and can I ask you how long you have actually read the bible?

"Get any scholar" - appeal to authority. Faulty logic on your part.

"How long have you actually read the bible" - As I mentioned previously, I have an M.Div from a seminary and have studied Greek. I've been reading it all my life.

You make a lot of assertions without any evidence. I gave you my evidence for Paul knowing Jesus. You give me nothing. I win.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Bruce,

A vision of Jesus is not a personal eyewitness of Jesus in the flesh. It was a vision. You as a beleiver, would call it a spiritual event.

He never saw Jesus, never touched him, never got that close. Interesting, because Paul would have been able to, as his contemporary. He apparently was too busy killing christians to care about Jesus at all. Some zealot.

Bruce, your 2 pronged argument falls flat, because you claim Paul as an eyewitness to Jesus.

Get any scholar, or for that matter anyone to back you up on that, and can I ask you how long you have actually read the bible?

"Get any scholar" - appeal to authority. Faulty logic on your part.

"How long have you actually read the bible" - As I mentioned previously, I have an M.Div from a seminary and have studied Greek. I've been reading it all my life.

You make a lot of assertions without any evidence. I gave you my evidence for Paul knowing Jesus. You give me nothing. I win.

Argumentum ad verecundiam is perfectly admissible in the case of informal logic, for example, where no direct testing of results is possible. This is usually, if not always, the case with historical evidence. It is akin to expert testimony in a court of law - not to be given the same level as credence as direct, deductive logic from direct evidence, but certainly admissible.

Besides, what is an argument based upon the unverifiable, second-hand testimonies of the bible if not an Argumentum ad verecundiam at best - at worst, mere hearsay.


Edit: sp.

[Bruce Burleson]

Argumentum ad verecundiam is perfectly admissible in the case of informal logic, for example, where no direct testing of results is possible. This is usually, if not always, the case with historical evidence. It is akin to expert testimony in a court of law - not to be given the same level as credence as direct, deductive logic from direct evidence, but certainly admissible.

Besides, what is an argument based upon the unverifiable, second-hand testimonies of the bible if not an Argumentum ad verecundiam at best - at worst, mere hearsay.

The letters of Paul are not hearsay. They are his personal testimony. In the US, his letters would be admissible in a court of law under an exception to the hearsay rule relating to ancient documents. Neither Paul's writings nor John's gospel are "second-hand testimonies."

[Bruce Burleson]

I'm having some problem submitting my posts. Some of them don't make it to the forum. I should have saved them in Word but didn't. I'll change my evil ways.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Argumentum ad verecundiam is perfectly admissible in the case of informal logic, for example, where no direct testing of results is possible. This is usually, if not always, the case with historical evidence. It is akin to expert testimony in a court of law - not to be given the same level as credence as direct, deductive logic from direct evidence, but certainly admissible.

Besides, what is an argument based upon the unverifiable, second-hand testimonies of the bible if not an Argumentum ad verecundiam at best - at worst, mere hearsay.

The letters of Paul are not hearsay. They are his personal testimony. In the US, his letters would be admissible in a court of law under an exception to the hearsay rule relating to ancient documents. Neither Paul's writings nor John's gospel are "second-hand testimonies."

They are an account that may or may not have been written by Paul. Please provide evidentiary proof that he was the author. The fact that the legal system in a single country says they are admissible says nothing about their provenance, let alone their veracity as an accurate witness-statement. If you wish to base your case upon legal precedents, I don't believe that arational thought transference is recognised in law anywhere.

[Bruce Burleson]

I, too, have attempted the technique of "opening myself to the indwelling presence". I use it on a daily basis. Discretion forbids that I embellish this with too many details.

Well, at least you are regular.

[Bruce Burleson]

They are an account that may or may not have been written by Paul. Please provide evidentiary proof that he was the author. The fact that the legal system in a single country says they are admissible says nothing about their provenance, let alone their veracity as an accurate witness-statement. If you wish to base your case upon legal precedents, I don't believe that arational thought transference is recognised in law anywhere.

This has nothing to do with my arational argument. The evidentiary proof that he was the author is based on the internal evidence of 1) that the letters state that they are from Paul (which should be enough unless you have evidence to the contrary, which you do not); 2) that the style of writing in the "undisputed epistles" is similar (based on word choice, topical analysis, theological perspective and autobiographical statements); and 3) the circumstantial nature of the epistles is not the style one would normally use if forging a document - too much personal information makes it easy for a forger to be detected. The external evidence is 1) the book of Acts, which traces Paul's ministry and fits quite well with the historical information found undisputed epistles; and 2) the references to Paul in the writings of the early church fathers. Finally, there is the fact that there is no opposing evidence from contemporary sources against Pauline authorship. There is simply no reason to doubt the authenticity of the epistles.

[Bruce Burleson]

Speculation about the likelihood vs. impossibility of psychic forces takes us off track, doesn't it? Much over-inference is needed to extrapolate such an event (though it seems likely to me to have been a matter of coincidence) into miracles that inspire religions. Bruce, I think you were using DuckPhup's anecdote to explain what you meant by arational, weren't you? Sounds like intuition to me. We often have no access to the types of data we need to make truly informed decisions in matters, and we're at times compelled to rely on intuition alone. But in the case of religion, an intuitive "insight" or vision can be examined afterwards and light shined on the matter. In former times, ordinary people had little-to-no access to information gathering that might have assisted them in spiritual or religious decision making. They must have needed to rely on intuition alone. Today, ordinary people have comparatively profound access to an amazing fount of information by way of books and online sources. I have a feeling, Bruce, that you're somewhat bifurcated in your faith, with part of you adhering to it and part of you recognizing the tentativeness and weaknesses of certain of its claims.

Intuition, revelation - the title is not important. What is interesting about the Duckphup Effect is that it was unexpected, unanticipated, and true (assuming that he is not lying about the whole thing). A statement against interest is entitled to a high degree of credence. Why would he lie about something as an atheist when he should know that it could easily be used by believers?

What I recognize about my faith and any faith is that it cannot be validated only by reason. What I question about the rationalist stance is that reason is the only basis for knowledge. You are on the same thin ice there as I am.

[Bruce Burleson]

In this instance, application of those areas would lead to the inevitable question that if Paul had indeed met Jesus in the flesh, why did he leave no written account of such a meeting within his extensive writings? In the context withing which he was writing, as a messanger of the lord and self-proclaimed "expert" on such matters, it is inexplicable and utterly remarkable that such an account would be withheld. The fact that it was is reason enough, in context, to highly doubt the veracity of such a claim. At the very best therefore, the "objective" conclusion would be that it could be deemed possible but unlikely. About as far from "established" as scholarly work can be. Unless you can provide any credible biblical scholar who says otherwise?

Credible biblical scholar? You mean one who agrees with you? Why is such an appeal to authority around here, especially since you don't accept the bible anyway? Why would any biblical scholar be "credible" to you, unless, of course, he agreed with your interpretation. Your position that Paul would have necessarily mentioned more about his encounter with Jesus betrays an ignorance on your part of the nature of the Pauline epistles. They were occasional and circumstantial, dealing with specific issues. Paul generally mentioned historical facts about Jesus only as needed if they related to the issue at hand. Furthermore, Paul was more interested in his current experience of Jesus spiritually. His knowledge of Jesus physically took place before his conversion, when he would have opposed him. He had preached to most of these churches before writing to them, so all of his knowledge about Jesus would have been imparted then. Now, he had other things to speak about, such as how to live one's life in light of the resurrection.

As for John, again reasoning and context are crucial. You've already made the point about the life expectancy in that era. "John" would have been a very very old man indeed in AD90. That point in itself reduces the probability of a direct eye-witness acount (although does not rule it out entirely of course). Then we have the gap of 60 years before such writings were made. Why, if you have just personally witnessed the son of god perform literal miracles, would you wait 60 years to document it? I suppose you could argue he could not write and had to learn first? 60 years to learn though? The variations in style of writing in the orignal langauges? I could go on.

There are many reasons why John would have waited. He probably knew that the synoptics were already written, so there was no urgent need to write his own gospel. He was preaching and ministering personally, and that probably left little time to write. He may have expected Jesus to return, as the other apostles did. Once he realized he was about to die, he wrote his gospel to fill in gaps in the record so the next generation would have that information. The circumstances of his writing so late are easily explained, and cancel out the issues that you raised. We are left with the fact that we have a gospel which purports to having been written by an eyewitness, and we have no contemporary evidence to dispute that. Advantage John.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

They are an account that may or may not have been written by Paul. Please provide evidentiary proof that he was the author. The fact that the legal system in a single country says they are admissible says nothing about their provenance, let alone their veracity as an accurate witness-statement. If you wish to base your case upon legal precedents, I don't believe that arational thought transference is recognised in law anywhere.

This has nothing to do with my arational argument. The evidentiary proof that he was the author is based on the internal evidence of 1) that the letters state that they are from Paul (which should be enough unless you have evidence to the contrary, which you do not); 2) that the style of writing in the "undisputed epistles" is similar (based on word choice, topical analysis, theological perspective and autobiographical statements); and 3) the circumstantial nature of the epistles is not the style one would normally use if forging a document - too much personal information makes it easy for a forger to be detected. The external evidence is 1) the book of Acts, which traces Paul's ministry and fits quite well with the historical information found undisputed epistles; and 2) the references to Paul in the writings of the early church fathers. Finally, there is the fact that there is no opposing evidence from contemporary sources against Pauline authorship. There is simply no reason to doubt the authenticity of the epistles.

There is every reason to doubt the testimony of a 2000 year old text for which I have no independent proof. Especially when you consider that it forms part of a notoriously historically inaccurate and self-contradictory larger work. The fact that a group of the epistles are in the same hand may simply be down to the fact that they were rewritten by the same scribe to suit some later holy man's religio-political ends.

It is simply too far in the past to know for certain that they were written by the claimed author. And it is certainly too far in the past to confirm any of the facts in them.

Why not take the Iliad as a faithful account of the fall of Troy? Or the Baghavad Gita as an accurate account of Kurukshetra War? Or the (relatively) much more recent Qu'ran as an accurate account of the conversations between Mohammed and god?

There is simply no reason to trust anything about the writings in the bible. They were written, edited and selectively collated by firm believers many years after the events which they claim to describe.

[Bruce Burleson]

I tried to post this account previously, but it was lost, so I'll try again. In the summer of 1971, I was 18 and a student at the University of Texas in Austin. That summer I occasionally supplemented my studies with experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs. One evening I and a couple of friends had taken some LSD, and they decided to go to a movie. I wasn't up for the movie, so I stayed at our apartment. I began to have a "bad trip," and felt that I was losing my grip on reality. Having been brought up Baptist, I had a New Testament, even though I was not practicing any religion at the time. In search of some relief from the effects of the acid, I opened the book to Matthew 1:1, which says "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." My eyes locked on the name "Jesus Christ," and vibrating flames started to emanate from it. Immediately, the "bad trip" was gone, and I had the experience of being in the presence of Jesus. The phrase "Jesus is the Son of God" began repeating itself in my mind, and I had the subjective sensation of something grabbing me and entering me in the area of the solar plexus. Accompanying subjective sensations included overwhelming awe, surges of joy and power, and deep peace.

This experience lasted over an hour. Without going into any great detail, the immediate after effects of that experience were 1) I had a hunger for studying the bible that I had never experienced before; 2) I had the daily experience of the presence of God in my life, including surges of joy and peace and the sense that Jesus was present in my life; and 3) I began having the experience of speaking in tongues, which is like a spring bubbling up from the chest and issuing out the mouth. These experiences have continued, to one degree of intensity or another, for the past almost 40 years. I haven't taken any hallucinogenic drugs since that time, and I don't hear audible voices or see visions. I simply have a subjective experience that convinces me that Jesus is real and that what is written about him is true. Specifically, the experience of the baptism and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, explained in the early Christian writings collectively known as the New Testament, is a real experience for me.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

OK. So your faith is an acid flashback.

Sorry - facetious - but a little irresistible!


I have had some very weird experiences on acid. I once experienced a period of total love and warmth for all mankind (shared with a friend that had just been beaten up while tripping!) that completely transcended all religion and made the teachings and practices any creed seem petty, monochrome and 2-dimensional shadows of true revelation. In this state, the words of every crappy love song seemed to be a proclamation of the oneness of all humanity and a celebration of life. neither of us could believe that we could ever go back to an ordinary life afterwards. But we did. It was just the drug. Ask any acidhead and they will give you a similar story.

It was nice. But it was bollocks. On another occasion, I spent hours (subjectively - it could have been any length of time really) staring at an orange that was shining with turquoise and gold flames. That was just as full of, and lacking in, meaning as the first.

[Bruce Burleson]

There is every reason to doubt the testimony of a 2000 year old text for which I have no independent proof. Especially when you consider that it forms part of a notoriously historically inaccurate and self-contradictory larger work.

This statement is so irrational. First, there are thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts that contain portions of the Pauline epistles. Have you ever read the United Bible Societies 3rd edition Greek text and looked at the critical apparatus contained therein? It explains very clearly the evidentiary basis for the general scholastic position regarding the content of the Pauline epistles. It's historical evidence. Take a little time and see the wealth of information that has been accumulated.

Second, the idea that the Pauline epistles are are less credible because they have been bound together along with other writings by men a few centuries later is risible. When written, Paul's epistles were not part of "the bible." The fact that a couple of hundred years later a religious/political council decided to call them "scripture" has no effect whatsoever on their intrinsic historical value. If a group of men decided to tack Einstein's Theory of General Relativity onto the end of the bible, would that make the theory less credible?

The fact that a group of the epistles are in the same hand may simply be down to the fact that they were rewritten by the same scribe to suit some later holy man's religio-political ends.
It is simply too far in the past to know for certain that they were written by the claimed author. And it is certainly too far in the past to confirm any of the facts in them.

In history, you go with the available evidence. There is an eyewitness account and no contrary evidence. In a legal case, that would be grounds for summary judgment. We cannot be certain, that is true. But we can arrive at a conclusion base upon a preponderance of the evidence. Historians and juries make assessments based upon what is available.

Why not take the Iliad as a faithful account of the fall of Troy? Or the Baghavad Gita as an accurate account of Kurukshetra War? Or the (relatively) much more recent Qu'ran as an accurate account of the conversations between Mohammed and god?

Homer (whoever he was or wasn't) did not claim to be a contemporary of the Trojan War. You tell me whether the Baghavad Gita' author claimed to be an eyewitness. If he did, that is some evidence. Regarding the Qu'ran, any statements by Mohammed about factual issues would be entitled to historical value. Subjective encounters with the divine are just that - subjective. I am not citing Paul for information about his subjective experiences. I am only interested in the evidence he gives about the historical Jesus.

There is simply no reason to trust anything about the writings in the bible. They were written, edited and selectively collated by firm believers many years after the events which they claim to describe.[/quote]