My Take On Jesus

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Sorry to cherry-pick your post, Bruce, but something jumped out at me.

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.

(My emphasis)
'Revelation'? I would prefer to describe it as 'guessing right'. Or are you arguing for some brand of telepathy here? We tend to remember the times that we are correct in guessing who is on the other end of the phone because they stand out. Far more often we are wrong and don't even remember or think about it. This is called the Von Restorff Effect.

Perhaps you just chose a bad example but this doesn't endear me to your theory of aratioanlity.

[Surendra Darathy]

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.

And that's an acceptable start, except for one thing: You're citing some sort of internal consistency as an argument that they (the epistles) should be considered specifically as historical documents. Fine, Bruce. Pride and Prejudice is internally-consistent, as well. Moreso than some texts I could mention, such as the gospels taken in aggregate as a text. Sure, I don't worry that Emma's characters are different from those of Persuasion. There are numerous individual stories in Burroughs' stories about John Carter of Mars, but I still don't think JC was a real civil war hero.

[nonverbal]

Bruce, are you allowing and correcting for literary traditions that were in use two millennia ago, as opposed to today's styles of journalism and fiction? For instance, was oral tradition still in general use as a common method of moving information along from generation to generation? If so, was such information commonly embellished? How commonly? What quantity and type of embellishment was common? Similar questions need to be addressed for written material of the time, as well, wouldn't you say?

[IIzO]

Hi o/

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.

And this is a false analogy.Colors have nothing to do with the subject.If you want a counter analogy its ,you either see ,or you are blind.

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).

what is the difference between the illogical and 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.

Excuse me ,but how could something that is "true information" different from "evidence" ?How do you examine "true information" to be actually "true" , or is it blind faith all the way ?

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.

So wild guesses/prejudices are "a-rational" as in "not subject to logic and evidence"....or is it just that you do not want to apply logic to justify them ?

Edit.You used the term "revelation". How is revelation different from a delusion , and a lucky guess ?
This is very confusing.

[MrFungus420]

...and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

Two Three points on that (sorry, but I detest that phrase):

1 - Who wants to catch flies?
2 - You can catch a lot more flies with a steaming pile of manure or a rotting corpse.
3 - Flies are not attracted to honey anyway.

Sorry, end of mini-rant...

[nonverbal]

...and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

Two Three points on that (sorry, but I detest that phrase):

1 - Who wants to catch flies?
2 - You can catch a lot more flies with a steaming pile of manure or a rotting corpse.
3 - Flies are not attracted to honey anyway.

Sorry, end of mini-rant...

Cliches have a way of being correct on some level, but in this case, MrFungus, your point makes sense. Bruce is a seriously feeling and thinking person who is seeking tough criticism regarding his take on Christianity. He wants nothing more than straight shooting from his intellectual opponents, as he actually wants to further refine his faith. I consider Bruce to be a moderate Christian who has a most unusual hobby: teasing apart and reconciling his religion with 21st-century ways. The result, assuming he eventually publishes his vetted writings, could be as influential as Luther's protests were. Probably not, but they could be.

Bruce, please correct me if I'm mistaken about your intent. Honey is exactly what you do not want, correct?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

...and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

Two Three points on that (sorry, but I detest that phrase):

1 - Who wants to catch flies?
2 - You can catch a lot more flies with a steaming pile of manure or a rotting corpse.
3 - Flies are not attracted to honey anyway.

Sorry, end of mini-rant...

Mea culpa. It was a crap metaphor. But the point I was trying to make stands. If someone wants to discuss religion calmly and constructively, it is only fair to respond in kind.

[Surendra Darathy]

If someone wants to discuss religion calmly and constructively, it is only fair to respond in kind.

There's no such thing as presenting one's religious faith as "having two prongs, rational and a-rational" and having that accepted as "calm and constructive". What it consists of is putting old wibble in new bottles labeled "calm and constructive".

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If someone wants to discuss religion calmly and constructively, it is only fair to respond in kind.

There's no such thing as presenting one's religious faith as "having two prongs, rational and a-rational" and having that accepted as "calm and constructive". What it consists of is putting old wibble in new bottles labeled "calm and constructive".

No matter how bonkers somebody's ideas and beliefs are, as long as they present them civilly, they deserve to be responded to in the same manner. If they come in here screaming about us all going to hell and calling everyone sinners and evil, then no discussion is possible.

By all means expose the flaws in Bruce's arguments - there are many - but don't resort to any personal invective against him, that is against our rules here.

[goodboyCerberus]

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.

Yeah that was me, sorry. I lazily made up what it was originally written in, because I really had no clue. Thank you for educating me there. However, the point I was trying to make was in response to this:

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. 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.

Specifically, "the same personality and style of writing flows through each of them."

My point is that style can get lost during translation. Or, more to the point, put there by the translator. Whether it was Aramaic, Koine Greek, or Japanese (I'm assuming you can't read any of these), you can't know how Paul originally intended them to be read by original-language readers.


(Skip to 4:00)

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.

I never said he did. I said (via the video) he was the link between Jesus' lifetime and the Gospels, as Mark's was written sometime after 70 CE (because he mentions the destruction of the Temple) and the other three were copied from him (or Q). Paul did not follow Jesus until after he had been crucified. In fact, he persecuted Jesus' followers:

You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

Remember, Paul was converted when Jesus appeared to him from heaven on the road to Damascus, and then started building the early church and writing his letters.

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.

2 Corinthians 5:16:

16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.

16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

That doesn't look like the evidence that Paul personally knew Jesus, especially the King James Version, which says they (the early Christian Church?) knew him "after the flesh".


As for rational v irrational v arational, I think you can guess where I stand, but I'll let other commenters continue that argument.

[Surendra Darathy]

No matter how bonkers somebody's ideas and beliefs are, as long as they present them civilly, they deserve to be responded to in the same manner.

You can demand that responses be made "civilly", as a feature of your forum user agreement. Any community can enforce arbitrary community standards of "civility". There are no just desserts involved.

"Deserve" is a marvelous word. There is rich discussion to be had in the investigation of its properties.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No matter how bonkers somebody's ideas and beliefs are, as long as they present them civilly, they deserve to be responded to in the same manner.

You can demand that responses be made "civilly", as a feature of your forum user agreement. Any community can enforce arbitrary community standards of "civility". There are no just desserts involved.

"Deserve" is a marvelous word. There is rich discussion to be had in the investigation of its properties.

I don't have time to argue semantics - them's the rules here. We treat everyone in a civil manner here. If you consider that someone is trolling, report them - if you attack them, it will be you that gets a warning.

[StrawberryJam]

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.

Hello Bruce, that would be me. I merely point out the obvious to a christian bible reader. Your position is one where you make claims about Paul. I am merely pointing out that you may not be as comfortable with Paulus if you really examine the man. Only having posting problems on this thread. I can't go on, muct cut and paste from a word document. The screen is bouncing up and down again.

[StrawberryJam]

Paulus was a lying con artist my friend. A careful reading of his perposterous claims will expose that. He titles himself cheif persecutor of christians, years after the godman's death and resurrection. As a contemporary of Jesus, I guess this exposes the fact that Jesus' teachings and turning over of tables and miracles were of no real import while they were happening. If Galations 1:14 is correct, the self proclaimed zealot would have confronted Jesus himself. He does not. He appears NO WHERE in the secular histories of his age. With all the name dropping and claims of having connections with heavy hitters, you would expect him to be mentioned somewhere. He is not. His stories do not hold water once examined. We could argue about that for days since he has so many tall tales. Choosing anything that lying man wrote to have any value is unwise. He could not have been a student of Gamaliel's.
Here's a great link for you Bruce. I'm sorry you have put so much stock into a figure like Paulus.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm

[jd]

So now I will begin to build my edifice - beginning with the objective prong of my faith experience. This will take weeks, and I will build it one brick at a time. The objective prong of my experience deals with the historical Jesus, and what the historical evidence tells us about him. I assume that most of you reject the concept of biblical authority, of scripture being the inerrant and infallible Word of God. I have come to reject that myself. However, the writings that comprise what is called "The New Testament" are, nonetheless, 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.

Bruce

While I agree that the bible stories have some "evidentiary value", surely you'd understand that they can have very little such value when we start to get into detail? They are written by believers, on the basis of stories passed down by other believers and the reliability of any historical core is necessarily compromised by this process.

Otherwise, if you apply the same standards equally across all ancient sources, you might as well accept the "signs & wonders" that proclaimed the Roman emperors to be Gods, or that showed Mohammed was the Prophet of God.