My Take On Jesus

[goodboyCerberus]

Would you discount Matthew, who was supposedly with Jesus on the night before his crucifixion?

Matthew 25:
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
...
Why don't you reject these teachings altogether? Why do you pick and choose? How are you able to pick and choose?

I am able to pick and choose because I evaluate each passage objectively and rationally.

This response deserves a separate reply.

Matthew is the least historical of the four gospels, but its recitation of Jesus' teachings is, IMO, essentially accurate.

What?

"I believe Matthew is the least accurate of the four gospels, but it still provides evidence for a historical Jesus."

But you have to read those teachings in the language in which they were written (understanding that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Matthew was written in Greek).

You're not reading what they wrote. You do not have in your position the original, two millennia old parchments. Will you concede this or not?

Matthew 24:46 says kai apeleusontai outoi eis kolasin aionion, oi de diaioi eis zoen aionion. Assuming that aionion is properly translated as "eternal" (it could mean "age long"), the key word in the passage for purposes of this discussion is kolasin.. It means "punishment," but it does not imply torment.

Why?

By analogy, a person condemned to capital punishment receives an "eternal" punishment in that he is eternally, physically dead after execution.

No, they're dead. All we can honestly assume is that time stops for them when their brain activity ceases. What happens after that is a whole other ball game.

That does not mean that he continues to experience pain and agony. He is simply and eternally dead, from a physical standpoint. So, eternal punishment does not equate eternal torment. It means annihilation.

1) Energy (and thus, matter) cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. His body will be buried or burned and the atoms will spread into the world. Whatever consciousness that was contained in that brain will have ceased.

2)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/annihilation
1 a : to cause to be of no effect, nullify b : to destroy the substance or force of
2 : to regard as of no consequence
3 : to cause to cease to exist; especially, kill
4 a : to destroy a considerable part of <bombs annihilated the city> b : to vanquish completely, rout <annihilated the visitors 56–0>
5 : to cause (a particle and its antiparticle) to vanish by annihilating
intransitive verb of a particle and its antiparticle : to vanish or cease to exist by coming together and changing into other forms of energy (as photons)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal
1 a : having infinite duration, everlasting <eternal damnation> b : of or relating to eternity c : characterized by abiding fellowship with God <good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life? — Mark 10:17 (Revised Standard Version)>
2 a : continued without intermission, perpetual <an eternal flame> b : seemingly endless <eternal delays>
3 archaic : infernal <some eternal villain…devised this slander — Shakespeare>
4 : valid or existing at all times, timeless <eternal verities>

One of these things is not like the other. You're answering the question, "What time is it?" by saying, "Day is night."

3) Also, if eternal means annihilation...

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

...you don't believe in Heaven? Does infinity mean "zero" when talking about Hell and "infinity" when talking about Heaven?

[Bruce Burleson]

Regarding the objective and rational prong of my argument, I have established ...

This is one, I haven't heard before. Is the notion of Paul and John being eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus a new and fashionable meme, now? I know they're considered great satirists and songwriters, who changed the history of rock 'n' roll, and the fact that the latter fellow was assassinated adds a layer of mystique to the whole business, but, um.... How come I haven't heard this contention before? Honestly, I would admit to having had it presented to me previously, because it is such an astounding claim. I have heard lots of argument about whether or not anything credible as an eyewitness account of anything is contained in the bibble. Or is this The Burleson Version?

I get by with a little help from my friends, John & Paul. You say you want a revelation, well, you know, we all want to change the world. Just wait til George and Ringo weigh in. You will hear about Jesus. He loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah. Now, get out your Old Brown Shoe and stick it where the sun don't shine.

[Bruce Burleson]

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.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Waiting for Duckphup. Hmmm... I think Godot has a better ring.

[nonverbal]

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.

Bruce, I remember that conversation, and managed to find it:

I have had experiences which… if I were not a rational and critically-thinking individual… would have been a profound ‘conversion experience’. For example, while sitting in a hotel room in Taipei, Taiwan, I suddenly KNEW that my father had just died. I grabbed a piece of paper, wrote down the time and “Dad just died.” I soon confirmed that he HAD just died, and set out to return to Pennsylvania. Upon conferring with my mom, I discovered that his death had occurred at the time I had written… TO THE MINUTE. I hadn’t even been in communication with the family for over a month… and had NO reason to suspect that my dad might pass away… he was only 48 at the time. If I had any religious inclinations, that event would have firmly cemented them, and I would now… 37 years later… be going about ‘witnessing’ and handing out bible tracts.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/8631/

[goodboyCerberus]

I am only considering Paul's own firsthand personal testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus. This is the available objective eyewitness evidence. I am not aware of any contrary contemporaneous evidence. If you are, please provide it in your response. Without any such contrary contemporaneous evidence, the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of all historical facts quoted above.

Seeing as I've supplied a passage where Paul has admitted persecuting the early church and not knowing Jesus until after his crucifixion (I think you have the cart before the horse), and have supplied a video that I linked to three times without response that Mark knew more about Jesus' life than Paul, I am beginning to suspect you are simply ignoring my argument.

So, a quote, as I admit I'm prone to provide:

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed farther into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is a revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other; and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at secondhand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication; after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

[Bruce Burleson]

You're not reading what they wrote. You do not have in your position the original, two millennia old parchments. Will you concede this or not?

I concede that I do not have the autographs. What I do have is hundreds/thousands of manuscripts from different parts of the world that allow us to determine what the originals probably said. This is the work of so-called "lower textual criticism," determining what the original text probably said. As I mentioned before, the best scholarly analysis of this issue is found in the United Bible Societies 3rd Edition eclectic Greek New Testament text. It's edited, in part, by Bruce Metzger, who was Bart Erhman's mentor, for what that's worth.

Matthew 24:46 says kai apeleusontai outoi eis kolasin aionion, oi de diaioi eis zoen aionion. Assuming that aionion is properly translated as "eternal" (it could mean "age long"), the key word in the passage for purposes of this discussion is kolasin.. It means "punishment," but it does not imply torment.

Why?

Because there is nothing in the etymology of the word itself that requires it to mean torment.

Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

...you don't believe in Heaven? Does infinity mean "zero" when talking about Hell and "infinity" when talking about Heaven?

The eternal punishment of the "goats" is eternal death, cessation of existence. The eternal life of the righteous is eternal existence.

[Bruce Burleson]

Bruce, I remember that conversation, and managed to find it:

I have had experiences which… if I were not a rational and critically-thinking individual… would have been a profound ‘conversion experience’. For example, while sitting in a hotel room in Taipei, Taiwan, I suddenly KNEW that my father had just died. I grabbed a piece of paper, wrote down the time and “Dad just died.” I soon confirmed that he HAD just died, and set out to return to Pennsylvania. Upon conferring with my mom, I discovered that his death had occurred at the time I had written… TO THE MINUTE. I hadn’t even been in communication with the family for over a month… and had NO reason to suspect that my dad might pass away… he was only 48 at the time. If I had any religious inclinations, that event would have firmly cemented them, and I would now… 37 years later… be going about ‘witnessing’ and handing out bible tracts.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/8631/

NONVERBAL THE ATHEIST COMES THROUGH FOR ME. What a guy!!! There it is - Duckphup's the Atheist's testimony. The Duckphup Effect in black and white (or brown and cream). Thank you, nonverbal.

[goodboyCerberus]

This isn't in response to anyone, just a comment.

I've been copying and pasting sections from various versions of the Bible in an attempt to trip Bruce up. I, however, have already started with the premise that the Bible is flawed. So how can I continue to use passages from the Bible in hopes to prove my points? I'm aware of the inconsistency, so I must stop coming from this angle.

Bruce, my temper has flared, but I hope I haven't been too bad. I'll continue to debate you if you'd like. However, I need some personal time; my week is getting very busy.

Adéu.

[Bruce Burleson]

I am only considering Paul's own firsthand personal testimony of seeing the resurrected Jesus. This is the available objective eyewitness evidence. I am not aware of any contrary contemporaneous evidence. If you are, please provide it in your response. Without any such contrary contemporaneous evidence, the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of all historical facts quoted above.

Seeing as I've supplied a passage where Paul has admitted persecuting the early church and not knowing Jesus until after his crucifixion (I think you have the cart before the horse), and have supplied a video that I linked to three times without response that Mark knew more about Jesus' life than Paul, I am beginning to suspect you are simply ignoring my argument.

I'm not ignoring your argument. The passage you cited does not show that Paul did not know Jesus until after the crucifixion. It simply confirms that he did not follow him as Lord and Savior until that time. He knew him physically beforehand, as shown by II Cor. 5:16.

So, a quote, as I admit I'm prone to provide:

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed farther into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is a revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other; and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at secondhand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication; after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

I have no quarrel with this. My personal experiences convince me - I do not expect them to convince you. If the conclusion of this debate is that you think my faith is valid for me but not for you, I could ask for nothing more.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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.

Bruce, I remember that conversation, and managed to find it:

I have had experiences which… if I were not a rational and critically-thinking individual… would have been a profound ‘conversion experience’. For example, while sitting in a hotel room in Taipei, Taiwan, I suddenly KNEW that my father had just died. I grabbed a piece of paper, wrote down the time and “Dad just died.” I soon confirmed that he HAD just died, and set out to return to Pennsylvania. Upon conferring with my mom, I discovered that his death had occurred at the time I had written… TO THE MINUTE. I hadn’t even been in communication with the family for over a month… and had NO reason to suspect that my dad might pass away… he was only 48 at the time. If I had any religious inclinations, that event would have firmly cemented them, and I would now… 37 years later… be going about ‘witnessing’ and handing out bible tracts.

http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/8631/

Thanks for that nonverbal.

I think I will have to agree with the good Mr Paine, as quoted above, on this one. I would expect that Duckphup might still have the piece of paper - but what would that prove? I would be choosing between believing the word of somebody that i don't know, or trusting my own experience of the world, in which I personally have experienced nothing similar.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have no quarrel with this. My personal experiences convince me - I do not expect them to convince you. If the conclusion of this debate is that you think my faith is valid for me but not for you, I could ask for nothing more.

The examples that you have given of arationality have so far been either generalised or based upon hearsay evidence. I am debating you here, not Duckphup. What is your own experience of this arational knowledge. What have you learned this way? I would find that a lot more fascinating than a hundred Duckphups (no disrespect to the man, I am sure that he is perfectly charming.)

Your personal experiences convince you, you say. These are first-hand reports, one step improved from hearsay. Not that I will necessarily believe you, nor interpret them in the same manner that you choose to, but won't you share?

[IIzO]

Fine , Bruce's arationality , is just blind faith.Its not challenged by criticism .Its not testable , the only "revelations" made seems to only concern unverifiable events , or seem to concern only past events....without the possibility to check out if the "revelation" is prior to the event.
Faith disagrees with rationality in its premise , its irrational.
And again saying that an information is "True" a priori is just begging the question.

[IIzO]

I have no quarrel with this. My personal experiences convince me - I do not expect them to convince you. If the conclusion of this debate is that you think my faith is valid for me but not for you, I could ask for nothing more.

Seriously anything can be taken on faith , faith requires no consistency , evidence , or even personal experience.If you want to convince someone you have to put some logic into it.You can't appeal to a skeptic without logic , at least not in an exchange of words.

[jd]

Regarding the objective and rational prong of my argument, I have established that there are two eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus - that of Paul and that of John.

No you haven't - you have asserted it.

Paul, by his own account, had no first-hand knowledge of the human Jesus, merely a "spiritual revelation" in which he "saw" the "risen Jesus". If this happened in any other walk of life than of your own religion, you would be happy to dismiss this as a delusion.

There is no objective evidence that anything written under the name "John" was actually first hand witness evidence, merely a Church tradition that the gospel under that name was, perhaps, written by a disciple.

And of course the evidence given by believers is less reliable than that of disinterested observers. We know that people can fool themselves about what has happened when they are interested in the outcome - just look at the home crowd at any sporting occasion.