Religion
Related: About this forumEvidence for historical Jesus is very weak:
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think/Before the European Enlightenment, virtually all New Testament experts assumed that handed-down stories about Jesus were first recorded by eye witnesses and were largely biographical. That is no longer the case.
...
None of the four gospels claims to be written by eyewitnesses, and all were originally anonymous. Only later were they attributed to men named in the stories themselves.
While the four gospels were traditionally held to be four independent accounts, textual analysis suggests that they all actually are adaptations of the earliest gospel, Mark. Each has been edited and expanded upon, repeatedly, by unknown editors. It is worth noting that Mark features the most fallible, human, no-frills Jesusand, more importantly, may be an allegory.
All of the gospels contain anachronisms and errors that show they were written long after the events they describe, and most likely far from the setting of their stories. Even more troubling, they dont just have minor nitpicky contradictions; they have basic, even crucial, contradictions.
...
Despite generations of apologists insisting Jesus is vouched for by plenty of historical sources like Tacitus or Suetonius, none of these hold up to close inspection. The most commonly-cited of these is the Testimonium Flavianum... Today historians overwhelmingly recognize this odd Jesus passage is a forgery. (For one reason, no one but the suspected forger ever quotes it for 500 years!) But Christian apologists are loathe to give it up, and supporters now argue it is only a partial forgery.
...
As historian Robert M. Price notes, just as Superman comics spun off into stories of young Superboy in Smallville, Christians wrote stories of young Jesus in Nazareth using his divine powers to bring clay birds to life or peevishly strike his playmates dead.
...
Some of our familiar New Testament epistles like 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude were rejected as forgeries even in ancient times; today scholars identify almost all of the New Testament books as forgeries except for six attributed to Paul (and even his authentic letters have been re-edited).
...
Generations of Christian apologists have pointed to the existence of Christian martyrs as proof their religion is true, asking Who would die for a lie? The short answer, of course.
...
Best-selling New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman believes that the biblical stories about Jesus had their kernel in the person of a single itinerant preacher, as do most New Testament scholars. Historian Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald (co-author of this article) take an opposing positionthat the original kernel was a set of ancient mythic tropes to which unsuspecting believers added historical details.
----------
I have to say, the lack of surviving evidence does not surprise me in the least, given the long time-span and the cultural context.
For example:
The Roman Empire had a bureaucratic, orderly, cold-blooded culture. There are loads of political, philosophical and educational texts preserved from those ancient times. But very, very little is known about everyday-life in Ancient Rome.
* Archeologists have found a detailed list of the regular supplies a roman legion needed to stay operational. But they don't know what those supplies were actually used for and, for example, WHY roman legionaires needed ox-sinew.
* Gladiator-fights were a huge spectacle, with professional fighters, with many different fighting-styles, with main-events that attracted huge audiences... with advertisements and action-figures... But nobody bothered to write all this down. Very much is still unknown, for example the names and fighting-styles of several types of gladiators. Or whether female gladiators were something ordinary or extraordinary.
lies
(315 posts)to try and prove religion wish history or science.
What's the point?
Anyway, yes, historical evidence is weak, but it's seen as strong by many American evangelicals... but that's like shooting fish in a barrell.
If you don't have faith there's no point in looking for justification for religious beliefs in science or history. And if you DO have faith, there's no point in looking for justification for religious beliefs in science or history. IMO.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)by appealing to the will of the god they believe in.
If religion were truly just a personal experience with no effects on anyone apart from the individual believer, I'd agree with you, what's the point?
But religion is far more than that, and it impacts billions of lives directly.
The even larger truth is that those same people would use something else - America is controlled with fear and nationalism as much as with religion - if religion were not available.
Orrex
(63,291 posts)Whatever they might use if religion weren't available, they are using religion right now, and they're inflicting incredible damage with their policies.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So I disagree that "fear and nationalism" are just like religion.
lies
(315 posts)I presented an article explaining why religion is unique. You countered it with exactly nothing. As it stands right now, I've made my case, and you haven't even tried.
lies
(315 posts)It's not an argument where there can be a winner based on facts.
I don't agree with your premise, your article was unconvincing, I don't think you'll change your mind, so...
I disagree with you. You disagree with me.
We'll agree to disagree.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you could, perhaps I'd agree to disagree. But you won't, so I don't.
lies
(315 posts)Your options are:
- agree
- disagree
- have no opinion
You've already made it clear you disagree.
I've made it clear I disagree with you.
We're in disagreement.
There's no other option.
And frankly, your blog post was wildly unconvincing. If that's what passes for 'convincing' in your world why waste my time?
And in fact this post is the end of my wasting my time with you.
We disagree. That's it. I don't need your permission to disagree and you disagree with me. So. It's done. Move on.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)You must not be too confident in it, I guess.
I apologize for "wasting your time," although it was your choice whether to respond at all. I didn't force you to do a thing.
Take care!
bitterross
(4,066 posts)I once made the off-hand comment that there was really no actual proof of a historical Jesus to a person I thought was a Catholic who had really abandoned his Catholic roots. But some things die hard no matter how you feel about the Church.
He went off insisting that I had to prove to him that no Jesus existed. Of course I informed him the burden of proof was actually on him to prove Jesus did exist. Not for me to prove a negative. He didn't like that. Perhaps because I was already in possession of the knowledge stated in this article and used it to great effect with him. For every traditional argument he made for the existence of Jesus I had a counter. He had no counter arguments at all because all he had was traditional teaching on the subject. That is to say completely uncritical acceptance of a story that really has no better credibility than any other religious tradition and ideology.
rug
(82,333 posts)She's been pursuing this new career for some time now and has no training in history. This article is Raw Story clickbait and a rehash.
https://valerietarico.com/about/
David Fitgerald is a self-published internet scholar with no sense of typography. I don't know why he's credited at the end of this article unless it's to prevent a plagiarism lawsuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Fitzgerald_(author)
PJMcK
(22,074 posts)Sorry, rug, but I don't understand your opinion that "this article is Raw Story clickbait and a rehash."
Your link to information about the article's author, Valerie Tarico, took me to a page with her professional biography. She appears to have had a modestly successful career. Nothing in the bio suggested that she was involved in any controversy. Likewise, the link to David Fitzgerald's Wikipedia page shows another modestly successful professional. Is there evidence or accusation of fraud, plagiarism or other malfeasance in their work? Your dismissal suggests that you don't hold them in high regard.
The Raw Story article presents some important facts about the history of the Bible. These issues are critically important to understanding what the Bible is and isn't. They are timeless.
My own view is that the history of the Bible is so fraught with translations, interpretations and editorial changes that it cannot withstand intellectual rigor. Accordingly, any story about this issue needs to be repeated. And while Raw Story is a bit sensationalist, it's the links on their pages that represent the true clickbait.
By the way, it's funny to me that Mr. Fitzgerald's earlier book is titled, "Nailed."
Please explain the disdain that you expressed. Thanks, in advance.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Something he'll do to hostile commentary, but something he calls out when someone does it to his friendly sources.
Orrex
(63,291 posts)According to his particular bingo card, calling out his fallacies is equivalent to a personal attack.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)But I wouldn't say "Author! Author!" either.
rug
(82,333 posts)Mythicism has made valiant efforts to acquire authority but is stll relegated to pockets of the internet. Fitzgerald is a prime example. The article is repackaged comments from mythicists. They are hardly "some important facts about the history of the Bible" at all, much as they'd like tem to be.
Tarico may have been a competent psychologist but, since her self-decribed journey from evangelicalism to atheism, she's consciouskly donned the roll of antireligionist, really without the cred to carry it off. She's been around awhile. Google her.
Meanwhile, I saw no mention of Ftzgerald in the article or the byline. Did you? Why is his name there then?
"Nailed" is mildly amusing, though obvious.
The typography is godawful though. At least the quality of the cover is a fair warning about the quality of the contents.
Yes, disadain is the word I would use.
padfun
(1,792 posts)Generations of Christian apologists have pointed to the existence of Christian martyrs as proof their religion is true, asking Who would die for a lie? The short answer, of course.
By this logic, the Heaven's Gate cute would have to be true as well, since "Who would die for a lie?".
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
All of the gospels contain anachronisms and errors that show they were written long after the events they describe, and most likely far from the setting of their stories. Even more troubling, they dont just have minor nitpicky contradictions; they have basic, even crucial, contradictions.
A Visual Representation of Biblical Contradictions
https://sciencebasedlife.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/a-visual-representation-of-biblical-contradictions/
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But I still believe in Jesus and accept it as a matter of faith he existed.
Orrex
(63,291 posts)In it, he goes to considerable lengths to trace the numerous historical precedents for the Christ myth as well as the dubious historicity of the Gospels themselves.
I own it but haven't read it in 15 years. Nearly all of the criticisms I've read of the book can be boiled down to "But the bible says..."
Check it out, if you can get your hands on a copy.
okasha
(11,573 posts)dragged out every Spring.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Gullibility is in direct proportion to agreement.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)A 2000 year old "revelation" that comes out every spring.
It cannot be proved with absolute certainty nor disproven with absolute certainty.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)MFM008
(19,837 posts)can you hear it?
There are many things in heaven and earth Horatio.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)There is no way to prove whether that thing you are looking at is God or not.
Cannot be proven.
Cannot be disproven.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody from now until the end of eternity will ever know whether it fell or didn't fall, did it really fall?
MFM008
(19,837 posts)Creations and he knows it fell.
Argument for the sake of argument.
You'll come around...take heart
God believes in you.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)1.
By extension, your comparison means that God must exist because God knows that God exists. Wow. That's really helpful. Just a quick question:
How do you know whether God knows that God exists?
Or does God believe that he exists?
And even if this can be constructed into a theological proof that God exists with respect to himself, that does reveal nothing whether God exists with respect to us.
2.
"God believes in you."
That's merely your belief.
You know what really pisses me off about believers? You have this fascinating and interesting cosmology, but instead of investigating and challenging it and trying to understand it, you declare it to be off-limits. You construct circular, self-referential arguments that have no connection to the rest of the world and explain nothing. And then you declare that this is how it's supposed to be.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Trees live in forests, trees fall over in time, we can observe all of this, and use it to make accurate predictions. There is zero support for any god, so once someone brings something forward, we can safely dismiss the notion. There is actually evidence against God, so that battle is uphill.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)I'm asking you: Has that specific tree I'm thinking about fallen down?
You don't know that.
Also, as a scientist I would LOVE to see your evidence AGAINST God. I am a very, very doubtful of your claim.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The falling tree quip is a lesson in certainty, demonstrating that we can't be absolutely certain about anything, not even processes we experience nearly every day. It doesn't in any way imply that a tree falling in complete silence is anywhere near as likely it being loud-as-fuck, nor does it imply you should give the time of day to anyone suggesting trees don't make noise when people aren't around.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)If you look at enough cases, you can generate an average. And if you look at all the cases... the Sun will eventually consume Earth and no tree will ever make a sound again.
The scientific method does not apply to God, because God is being defined as unique. You cannot make a prediction for something that has no comparable example.
God, as defined by Christians, is philosophically too weird an object to be handled by the scientific method. It's outside of the capabilities of science.
Consider it from a mathematical point of view:
You have a problem, but none of the methods in your textbook can solve that problem. Does that mean the problem is unsolvable? No. It just means that you need a new method. (And I don't mean religion. Religion was an evolutionary predecessor of science. There's no point in going back.)
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)We can be reasonably certain a tree falling alone in the forest makes a noise. We can be reasonably certain a 1st century Nazarene carpenter not mentioned once by contemporaneous sources didn't rise from the dead.
I can define anything as unique and therefore not subject to the scientific method. That doesn't mean it's true.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Than we can actually go out and visit that tree to see it's condition.
Against God? Well, evolution, lightning rods, plate tectonics, multiple Faith's...
PsychoBabble
(837 posts)Wish there was as much attention paid to the positive values within the Bible (or any such book/religion), regardless of historical details.
Shouldn't the true value of the Bible/Christianity be about HOW to live, vs. the "person" of Jesus?
Seems like the insistence on details are where everyone comes off the rails, and the wars, verbal and physical, start.
Fix The Stupid
(951 posts)Anyone who needs a book about "HOW to live" should be put down anyway.
Sad commentary on how society really is out there.
" I need this book written 2000 years ago by goat bangers to tell me how to live today.."
That is scary right there....do you really need to read in a book how to treat other people? Seriously? Can't deduce this from your own life experiences? You really have to see it written down somewhere, "Thou shalt not steal" or else you'll be a thief? WTF?
We're fucking doomed on this planet if this is how the vast majority of people believe and act.
Sad.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Now more need to come around.
Igel
(35,390 posts)A usual view is that Mark was a primary source, but there were other sources, many of which were compilations of sayings that have no special status as recent innovations. In fact, they might be older than Mark's source. Or might not.
A lot of Bible criticism goes in cycles. It's like I was told in the '90s--one way of making a name for yourself in Slavistics was to show that Roman Jakobson was wrong. It was a cottage industry, and not worth the paper or effort.
Now, Bible critics are after truth. On the other hand, if they dispose of text that provides the basis for doctrines they don't like, if they dispose of confining and constricting wordage, then they have a freer hand and can say more impressive and important things. There's no money in being a Bible scholar that is sharply traditionalist, and no fame.