My Take On Jesus

[week15]

I'm also interested in this "arational" category. Rationality seems an all or none endeavor. Could it be that you are re-branding base premises (which can seldom be proven) as outside of rationality? Do you use these "arational" premises as starting points of rational debate or as the end point?

I think the third category is useful for things like choosing which shirt to wear today, what I want to eat for lunch and such (between different rational choices), but I think you're right that Bruce is misapplying the category in order to hide behind a smokescreen.

I'm not sure it's a smokescreen yet (I didn't mean to imply that). I'd really love clarification from the original poster (if he comes back-- seemed like a pack of wolves descending on a pork chop. I think we're all a little debate starved).
We all use base assumptions, none of which can be proven outside the five senses and convention. I assume there is a world outside me and that other beings such as myself inhabit that world. I can make no sound argument to supports this assumption. Existence cannot be predicated. We must start somewhere.

Are these assumptions "arational?" I've been thinking about other "a-" words: "atypical," "asymmetrical," "amoral," "atheist." Is there a difference between amoral and non-moral? What would that difference look like? It is an interesting distinction but I need clarification to understand its function.

Edit-- Bruce responded before I could post this. I'm going to read what he wrote now.

[Apollonius]

Bruce:

"...historical writings that have some evidentiary value. I invite you to put aside the concept of Scripture, the Holy Bible, the Word of God, and the New Testament, and simply evaluate the early Christian writings for their historical content..."

Of course they are interesting historically, but they are basically beliefs based on rumors.

Paul took the religion of Jesus and turned it into a religion about Jesus. It's a lot of bull, but interesting to pick apart to understand how myths evolve.

[week15]

I'll get to the "arational" prong later, but since several of you commented on it, I want to emphasize that I consider that a starting point for conversation, not an ending point. In other words, I am not claiming that the subjective aspect of my faith experience is shut off from rational analysis. Sam Harris' brain studies are relevant, as are any other studies on human consciousness and experience. I call those experiences arational because they are not the product of deductive reasoning, but were mediated suddenly, unexpectedly. Without them, I would not have much in the way of faith today, as I do not think religious faith can be the product of rational processes alone.

Great clarification. I think we are talking about base assumptions here. I'm comfortable with that not because I'm much for faith, but because, again, we all have to start our arguments at some base point.

Really though, doesn't "arational" here replace a term like "common sense" or "articles of faith?" The basic assumptions our brains immediately make (and I have not read Harris) seem a separate phenomena than a basic belief in God. These assumptions, after all, often must be challenged because they contradict each other or objective observation (I see the stars above me, but I know they are actually above, below, behind, and in front of me). Is it the set of assumptions we call "common sense" you're renaming or do I misunderstand?

Also, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. I make no claim of being a biblical scholar, so I cannot really say I have enough knowledge to accurately judge the book's worth. I'd love to here a well-versed response.

[goodboyCerberus]

Someone wrote the letters, and the internal evidence says it is Paul. He clearly identifies himself, and the same personality and style of writing flows through each of them.

Unless you can read Aramaic, you're reading a translation. And I've heard it said that there are more translations of the Bible than there are words contained within it (Misquoting Jesus). Therefore one cannot know if they are reading Paul's literary voice or that of someone else.

Generally, these epistles are occasional and circumstantial, meaning that they deal with certain situations that were arising in the congregations to whom Paul ministered. This is not the style that is generally used by forgers - it is not a "once upon a time there was a man named Jesus" type writing. His references to Jesus are tangential, generally when something about the life of Jesus relates to the topic he is addressing. These are all hallmarks of historical authenticity. So, I stand by my position that these letters are basically undisputed. If you have evidence to the contrary, certainly I am interested.

...

Until you convince me otherwise, I'm assuming that Paul lived from the early part of the First Century CE to about the mid-sixties. This would have made him a contemporary of Jesus, if Jesus existed. The Jesus presented in the early Christian writings was about 30 years old in about the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, which would have been about 29 CE.

Yes, I agree so far as to say they were written by Paul. However, according to the Bible, Paul was converted after Jesus had already died: Jesus first appears to Paul on the road to Damascus as a "light from heaven" (Acts 9). Additionally, this timing issue means something very important to early Christian ministry.

Although its lazy of me I'd like the following video, a clip from the movie The God that Wasn't There (2005), make my argument for me.



(More: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8668420724#)

Thank you and have a good day.

[Surendra Darathy]

The first prong of my faith is the historical, objective, rational prong. (By the way, whoever said "two prongs don't make a rite" made me split my gut laughing! Good one.) I'll get to the "arational" prong later, but since several of you commented on it, I want to emphasize that I consider that a starting point for conversation, not an ending point.

Well, come on, then: Insisting that the first prong is not arational because it ties a set of texts to historical figures is just going to map onto the "historicity of Jesus" discussion. This is not an argument about any aspects of divinity in historical figures, but a discussion about whether or not to treat the texts now assembled as the "Bible" as an historical document. I'll grant that there is much fiction written in which actual historical events are inserted to supply verisimilitude.

Prong-the-first needs some work. IMO, you'll never get to prong-the-second if you really want to discuss the first one. Think about it. We can go through every historical document all over again, trying to see if we can spot any other historical reports of divine figures, or we can proceed directly to the nominally arational prong which rests wobblingly (or is that wibblingly) on the ex recto assertion that the historical prong is itself a singularity in history. The meaning of the latter is that we are excused from searching through all the rest of the historical archives for further evidence of divine interventions in human affairs.

It's fine with me if you want to market the whole business to yourself that way, but I find it a wonderment to see the paradox of "jumbo shrimp" paraded in public as if for the first time. You don't have a rational prong. I'll drizzle your prongs in garlic and olive oil and barbecue them. It is shellfish of me to do so, but you're selling tails out of school, and that just sticks in my craw.

seemed like a pack of wolves descending on a pork chop

Or a pleasant party of picnickers partaking of barbecued prongs. Pork chops and prongs, surf and turf.

There are many areas of supposedly scholarly discourse which seem capable of producing an infinite amount of nonsense about nothing. In the present case, we are investigating one somewhat idiosyncratic take on aspects of the "foundations of knowledge belief".

[Pombolo]

This is ridiculous. A believer comes onto the forum and declares his position, and then specifically asks us to respond to what he has declared. The first three posts (including mine) do precisely that: respond clearly and lucidly only to what Bruce declared in his original post, without invective or vulgarity. Then this happens:

To those that have responded to this thread already, can I just say that I find your responses mostly unwelcoming and unnecessarily aggressive.

Please point to where this unwelcoming aggression is. Seriously - show me how the first three responses (before yours) in any way fit that description.

This is not RD.net.

You are correct to point this out - I specifically moderated my response, and the tone it was written in because I am aware that I am on a new forum, which may have a different tone and board culture. Further, I suspect that is why you have projected some non-existent aggression onto the initial responses - failing to give a nice fluffy welcome to someone does not equate with 'aggression'.

We don't throw christians to the lions here - especially those that open with such a reasonable (albeit flawed IMO) opening.

And that is precisely what the first three responses zoned in on - his flawed premise. If you disagree, and still think that this was 'throwing a Christian to the lions' then please point out the sentences.

Civility costs nothing...

Neither does reading what was actually posted. Or, indeed, what Bruce asked us to do.

IF Bruce returns to post again, I would expect a little more courtesy from our members, new or old.

With the greatest respect that I, a newcomer, can afford to someone with nigh on 20k posts... put up or shut up. That sentence is very patronizing to people who did nothing of what you are claiming.



As for the others who supported Xamonas Chegwe's post - did you even read the first three responses, or did you simply like the sentiment of Xamonas Chegwe's post, and hang your coat upon it?

Pluto2, FBM, week15, Necro... care to comment? Where do you perceive this apparent hostility in the three responses Bruce received before Xamonas Chegwe posted? Necro in particular:

Not a very warm welcome. What's with the attacks?

Indeed! Care to highlight them for me?

[Pombolo]

Bruce, I think you may have misunderstood the criticism of your 'arational' category. You say that you "consider it" a starting point, and not an ending point - but the suspicion is that you will use it as an ending point. Any rational explanation that possibly dispels your revelatory experiences can simply be placed in the 'arational' repository since it

is in a different category in which reason is not the primary consideration.

... you see? Consider what you have said about it already:

but for now it is appropriate to point out that I neither consider the subjective, revelatory aspect of my faith to be 100% rational, nor do I consider it to be irrational.

Something not rational IS irrational, by definition. It sounds like you simply don't like the sound of the word irrational, and would prefer a term that simply means 'not logically deduced' but carries none of the 'irrational' baggage. That is why we are querying arational.

It's an ill-defined term that seems to have had a pre-defined purpose. You also state:

as I do not think religious faith can be the product of rational processes alone.

Well of course it can't, otherwise it wouldn't be faith This seems like another confusion over definitions. Claiming that something can be both not rational and not irrational, and then claiming that faith cannot be the product of rational processes: you have created your own category to fill a gap of your own making.

[StrawberryJam]

Hello. I’m from the Sam Harris “The Reason Project” forum, and just found out about you. I’m a Christian, practicing lawyer, ordained minister, husband, father, grandfather and Texan. I speak a little Spanish and Italian (lived in Europe about 4 ½ years), and I’ve studied a little Koine Greek. I play a bit of guitar, bass and mandolin, and occasionally write songs. I used to have a decent voice, but my range has decreased in the past few years. I’ve enjoyed debating non-believers on Sam Harris, and thought I would hang around here awhile. My plan is to post once every day or two, and pretty much confine myself to one thread. I look forward to the exchange of ideas and experiences, and I anticipate that I will learn a lot from you.
I’ve decided to entitle this thread “My Take On Jesus.” I’ll give you a brief overview of the basis of my faith, throw you a little red meat, and then see what happens. Bon appetit’.

I’m a non-denominational Christian, not affiliated with any church. I don’t feel bound by any particular interpretation of the Bible or any particular doctrine. I don’t really like the concepts of “Bible,” “Scripture,” “New Testament,” etc., but prefer just to look at the early Christian writings and evaluate each one of them on an evidentiary basis. Certain writings, such as those of Paul, appear to me to have a higher historical value than writings such as Revelation. The seven basically undisputed Pauline epistles have the highest historical value, with Mark, Hebrews and Luke-Acts coming second. The Pastorals, the other General Epistles, and Revelation are at the bottom as far as the historical reliability of Christian writings is concerned.
The Jewish writings known as the Old Testament are of less historical importance to me. While some of them appear to be accurate, many are not, and many fall in the symbolic or mythical class of writings. I don’t see the OT as having much value today as far as how I live my life. And, by the way, my interpretation of Christianity is just that, my interpretation. No attempt will be made to argue that it is binding on anyone else.

Generally, my faith has two prongs: 1) an objective prong based on what I understand to be historical facts about Jesus found in early Christian writings, which is subject completely to rational analysis; and 2) a subjective prong, based upon my own personal experiences and those of others whom I know, which I will discuss as a form of revelation. I’ll discuss these more as time goes on, but for now it is appropriate to point out that I neither consider the subjective, revelatory aspect of my faith to be 100% rational, nor do I consider it to be irrational. I like to use the term arational, simply meaning that it, like other aspects of the human experience, is in a different category in which reason is not the primary consideration. However, that does not mean that it should be shielded from rational analysis and critique, and I expect that you will do plenty of that.

Well, that’s enough to get started. I hope someone is interesting in engaging me in a lively discussion.

Hello Bruce, I can see why you would not like the Hebrew scriptures. That's were you get to see the very ugly side of the God you believe in. But, they are important because if you don't see them as such, you have a hard time using it to claim the prophetic link to Jesus. Jesus did not have a NT by the way.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Pombolo,

In response to your post above, allow me to explain what I found wrong with your initial post in this thread.

You've already declared that you use rational analysis when it suits you, and ignore it in favour of subjective acceptance of personal experiences when it suits you. Further, you have invented your own category (arational) specifically to host those experiences and revelations that you do not wish to treat differently. This smacks of a priori decision making: inventing new catergories and criteria in order to hold onto things - instead of using the criteria to decide whether you should be holding onto them.

There is nothing to debate with someone who does that. Anything that this forum sends your way can simply be filed into one of your categories that you consider different from objective rationality.

It is your last paragraph that I object to the most. You have not heard all of Bruce's argument, only a broad-strokes outline and his promise to elaborate further, and you are already making the judgment that "There is nothing to debate with someone who does that" and making a before-the-fact assumption that he will dodge any arguments placed before him.

Your tone came across as aggressive and dismissive to me when I first read it. It still does. I find it difficult to read your post without hearing you shouting. If it was not intended that way, I apologise, but in that case, perhaps it could have been worded better. Allow Bruce the chance to elaborate upon his arguments and by all means point out the gaps in them. But try and do so calmly, factually and without dismissing him out of hand. As I stated before, Bruce is not a fundie. He has obviously invested a great deal of time to formulating his point of view. He is also presenting that POV in a polite and reasonable manner and is open to discussion, from what I can see.

This site is not a student debating chamber where you 'win' arguments by scoring points. Think of it as a coffee shop where you exchange views and end up agreeing to disagree. This is what I meant when I said it was not RD.net.

[StrawberryJam]

As you know Bruce,

Paulus was not an eyewitness to Jesus according to scriptures.
Your reliance on him, is raising my eyebrow for several reasons.

[statichaos]

For the same reasons that StrawberryJam described, I'm a bit surprised by your taking the Pauline gospels as...well...gospel. While I don't have too many issues with gospels supposedly written by those who knew the man (or gospels written by those they related their experiences to some time later), I have an issue with the idea of gospels written by someone who had a vision years after his death.

The others may contain some nuggets of truth among the miracles and other stories I'm skeptical about. However, I'm leery of Paul from the beginning to the end. I don't doubt his sincerity, but I do doubt his connection with reality.

[goodboyCerberus]

While I don't have too many issues with gospels supposedly written by those who knew the man (or gospels written by those they related their experiences to some time later), I have an issue with the idea of gospels written by someone who had a vision years after his death.

The gospels were written after Paul. Please check out the video I linked.

[Andrew]

Mark!

[Bruce Burleson]

Thanks for your polite and insightful responses. I'll do my best to respond to the high points, and then move on to my second argument. Someone said that Paul's writings were translations from Aramaic. This is a mistake. Paul wrote in Koine Greek. Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and the gospels, written in Greek, would have to have translated Jesus' teachings from Aramaic to Greek. However, Paul did not write the gospels. In my first post I only dealt with the epistles of Paul, not the gospels. They were not originally written in Aramaic. One person said that Paulus was not an eyewitness, but gave no reference. I gave you a reference in II Cor. 5:16 that showed that Paul knew Jesus. I saw no evidentiary-based rebuttal to that position, so I stand by it.

Several posts questioned my "arational" category, and one said that if something is not rational then it is irrational by definition. This is a false dichotomy, based on faulty binary reasoning. It's like saying if something is not black, it's white. There are third options, like gray or blue. Ternary logic is called for in examining truth claims. So there is the rational (based on the logical), the irrational (based on illogical), and arational (based on the non-logical). Something is rational if based on evidence and sound logic. If something is based on faulty logic, it is irrational. If something relates to true information that is transmitted apart from the logical process, it is arational. That does not mean that you cannot go back and subject it to rational analysis - it's just that it originated by something other than rational processes - like when you hear the phone ring and know who it is, and then pick it up and your revelation is confirmed.

It was also argued that my objective prong was like parading jumbo shrimp in front of everyone. Well, bon appetit. I like cooking for my friends. If you don't want to consider my arguments, fine. I am taking a look at the earliest Christian writings and evaluating them from a purely objective perspective, with no talk of God or Scripture at this point. If you want to critique my argument, the menu is before you.

The second stone in my evidentiary foundation is that the writer of the gospel of John was an eyewitness to the life of Jesus. There is a strong tradition from early Christians that this was John, the son of Zebedee (whom Paul mentions in Galatians 2:9. This tradition is essentially unrebutted in early writings, and supported by circumstantial evidence from the gospel itself, so I see no reason to doubt it. However, the actual name of the author is unimportant for my purposes. He is known as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and is stated to be present with Jesus when the events recorded occurred (21:20-24). Any teachings of Jesus in this gospel would have to be translations from the Aramaic, but the gospel itself appears to have first been written in Koine Greek. I am only interested in the record of historical events in the gospel, so they were first recorded here in Greek. Furthermore, this gospel has a rare "self-proving affidavit" attached to it at 21:24, where third parties essentially swear to the truth of the gospel. A date somewhere around 90 CE is typically accepted for the writing.

To summarize these important points: 1) there is a document which claims to be written by an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus; 2) the document is attested by third-party witnesses; and 3) there is no contemporary writing that I know of which disputes this claim. This is the available evidence. Based upon this, there appears to be a preponderance of the evidence in favor of John having been written by an eyewitness. This gives me two sources of eyewitness testimony for some historical facts about Jesus. The Pauline epistles have the highest historical value because they were written closer to the time. The Johannine gospel is later, but is still eyewitness testimony. There are no contemporary writings (by another person who may have lived during the time of Jesus, if he existed) which rebut these writings. Therefore, they are entitled to a high degree of historical value regarding the matters asserted therein.

I look forward to your responses, and I reiterate that I have found the participants here to be civil. No one has called my mother's humanity into question or suggested that I should be institutionalized. That is significant departure from some of my prior experiences. This is the way it should be done.

[Apollonius]

Bruce,

I think you are cherry picking. It is not an established fact that Paul knew Jesus, or that the gospels like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were actually written by those people named.

Even if they were, what would that matter? Few people doubt Jesus actually existed and had a travelling magic show, but that's all it was.