How much do we know?

Polymath257 said:

Not in the oldest texts of Mark, the earliest of the gospels we have.

Click to expand...

Trimming Mark 16 to remove 9-20 still yields this:

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Do you understand why I tend to reject the canards I hear often about the gospels?

Polymath257 said:

The Book of Thomas the Contender: "The Secret words that the Savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I Mathaias, wrote down--I was walking, listening to them speak with one another"

Pseudographia claiming to be an eyewitness.

Click to expand...

No, I meant my post "...several NT authors warn against psuedopigrapha circulated in their names." Do you have an apocryphal quote where the author says, "Watch out for apocrypha falsely accredited to me as author"?

blü 2 said:

An HJ is an 'historical Jesus', a real one as distinct from any other kind.
As you know by now, by 'real' I mean having objective existence, existing in nature; that's why I asked you for a definition of God as a real being, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God or not. And as you and I know, neither you nor I know of any such definition, any such clear concept. And if a real God is, or real gods are ruled out in this way, that only leaves God as a concept in a brain, an imaginary god.
But only in your mind, not in objective reality ─ otherwise you could take a video of God, and be on every front page.
But just as there's no coherent concept of a real god, there's no coherent concept of a real supernatural ─ the two words contradict each other. So all things and beings correctly called supernatural are thereby correctly called imaginary.


I should take it by your silence that you don't want to go on the record and admit you do believe those videos show the god Ganesha miraculously drinking milk, yes?

Click to expand...

How did you come to learn that if God does the kind of proof you seek, that the world would trumpet Him on all front pages? Are you saying it's impossible God hides Himself from those not seeking Him, revealing Himself purposefully to those who do, and that this is somehow inefficient rather than a pure sorting device for individuals?

Jesus was a real, objective, historical person. He was God. Why do you say we cannot see God in the natural?

Valjean said:

Citations?
Enculturation.

Click to expand...

Here's a sample citation:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Enculturation explains why all of humanity is born atheist then all of humanity (99%) and 100% of human cultures are god-toward?

You have a lot of faith, yes?

BilliardsBall said:

Here's a sample citation:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Enculturation explains why all of humanity is born atheist then all of humanity (99%) and 100% of human cultures are god-toward?

You have a lot of faith, yes?

Click to expand...

I don't see any first person accounts. I see a claim that many have written accounts based on other accounts yet further removed.

Kids believe whatever their parents and cultures teach them. Hindus raise Hindus, Muslims, Muslims.
Al long as miracles are far removed people will believe them, no matter how poorly evidenced or how improbable the claims.
If folklore involves current events, though, like Santa or the Easter Bunny, the fiction is harder to maintain. People want evidence they see no need of with ancient fairy stories.

BilliardsBall said:

How did you come to learn that if God does the kind of proof you seek, that the world would trumpet Him on all front pages?

Click to expand...

I didn't learn it. I deduce it from the stories and the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, &c ─ such a god would have perfect knowledge of this entire conversation, thought for thought, draft for draft, keystroke for keystroke, correction for correction, post for post, back before [he] made the universe. [He] has perfect knowledge of every particle in the universe, from Big Bang to Big Rip or whatever.[He] can never be taken by surprise.

BilliardsBall said:

Are you saying it's impossible God hides Himself from those not seeking Him, revealing Himself purposefully to those who do, and that this is somehow inefficient rather than a pure sorting device for individuals?

Click to expand...

I'm saying yet again that this question is wholly unimportant unless God is real, has objective existence, is found in nature; but I don't know what real thing the word 'God' could denote, and neither do you, so your question has no meaning.

BilliardsBall said:

Jesus was a real, objective, historical person.

Click to expand...

Possibly. As I said, I think it's 50-50.

BilliardsBall said:

He was God.

Click to expand...

If someone was God, what real quality would they have that someone who wasn't God would lack? Given an historical Jesus, what objective test would have demonstrated to any impartial onlooker whether Jesus was God or not?

BilliardsBall said:

Why do you say we cannot see God in the natural?

Click to expand...

I can't send you a video of a real Mighty Thor, a real Donald Duck, only fictional ones. But if Mighty Thor and Donald Duck were real beings, there'd be no reason in principle why authentic videos of them couldn't exist. Are you saying you can indeed send me a video of God? Unlike Mighty Thor or Donald Duck, that would require a clear definition of a real God such that we can tell whether the video is likely to be from nature or from makeup / costumes / SFX. But once we're over those hurdles, don't just show the video to me, use it to win the Templeton!

Which is just another way of saying that while neither you nor I have any conceptual problem with the word 'God' denoting an imaginary god (since an imaginary god can be anything the imaginer wants), neither you nor I have any meaningful concept of what real thing, what thing with objective existence, what thing in nature, the word 'God' could denote.

Which is what I've said, over and over, from the start.

And of course such qualities as 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' and 'perfect' are likewise fine as imaginary properties, but have no meaningful definition such that we could objectively determine whether any real being possessed them or not.

Valjean said:

I don't see any first person accounts. I see a claim that many have written accounts based on other accounts yet further removed.

Kids believe whatever their parents and cultures teach them. Hindus raise Hindus, Muslims, Muslims.
Al long as miracles are far removed people will believe them, no matter how poorly evidenced or how improbable the claims.
If folklore involves current events, though, like Santa or the Easter Bunny, the fiction is harder to maintain. People want evidence they see no need of with ancient fairy stories.

Click to expand...

How is this not a first person account?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

blü 2 said:

I didn't learn it. I deduce it from the stories and the claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, &c ─ such a god would have perfect knowledge of this entire conversation, thought for thought, draft for draft, keystroke for keystroke, correction for correction, post for post, back before [he] made the universe. [He] has perfect knowledge of every particle in the universe, from Big Bang to Big Rip or whatever.[He] can never be taken by surprise.
I'm saying yet again that this question is wholly unimportant unless God is real, has objective existence, is found in nature; but I don't know what real thing the word 'God' could denote, and neither do you, so your question has no meaning.
Possibly. As I said, I think it's 50-50.
If someone was God, what real quality would they have that someone who wasn't God would lack? Given an historical Jesus, what objective test would have demonstrated to any impartial onlooker whether Jesus was God or not?
I can't send you a video of a real Mighty Thor, a real Donald Duck, only fictional ones. But if Mighty Thor and Donald Duck were real beings, there'd be no reason in principle why authentic videos of them couldn't exist. Are you saying you can indeed send me a video of God? Unlike Mighty Thor or Donald Duck, that would require a clear definition of a real God such that we can tell whether the video is likely to be from nature or from makeup / costumes / SFX. But once we're over those hurdles, don't just show the video to me, use it to win the Templeton!

Which is just another way of saying that while neither you nor I have any conceptual problem with the word 'God' denoting an imaginary god (since an imaginary god can be anything the imaginer wants), neither you nor I have any meaningful concept of what real thing, what thing with objective existence, what thing in nature, the word 'God' could denote.

Which is what I've said, over and over, from the start.

And of course such qualities as 'omnipotent' and 'omniscient' and 'perfect' are likewise fine as imaginary properties, but have no meaningful definition such that we could objectively determine whether any real being possessed them or not.

Click to expand...

Are you being serious? You don't agree with the scholars--who nearly universally--believe in HJ?

And are you seriously asking whether Jesus is reputed to have done something that shows what an objective God is? Resurrection from the dead was a rare thing back then.

BilliardsBall said:

Are you being serious? You don't agree with the scholars--who nearly universally--believe in HJ?

Click to expand...

As I said, after quite a bit of enquiry into the topic (including but by no means limited to Ehrman's book), I find no clincher either for an HJ or for no HJ.

BilliardsBall said:

And are you seriously asking whether Jesus is reputed to have done something that shows what an objective God is?

Click to expand...

Nope. I'm asking you what real quality Jesus would have if he were God that he wouldn't have if he weren't God, what test would have told any impartial onlooker whether he were indeed God or not.

BilliardsBall said:

Resurrection from the dead was a rare thing back then.

Click to expand...

No, resurrections were very common. Even in the bible tales ─
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21)
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).

and outside the bible there are endless examples, of which the following is a tiny sample ─

In Egypt, the god Osiris and in Greece, the god Dionysos, were put to death and came back to life.
In Greece,
Herakles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god.
The mortal physician Asklepios raised Lykourgos, Kapaneos and Tyndareos from the dead, and dying was himself resurrected and became a god.
Glaukos, Hippolytos and Orion were resurrected too.
Eurydike (and Scandanavia’s Baldur) nearly made it back.
Sumer’s Dumuzi and Greece's Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld.

And so on. In those days, a divine figure who didn't have a good resurrection yarn was a nobody.

And in every single case, the evidence was as good as Jesus' ─ namely stories with various versions, none by an eyewitness, none contemporary.

BilliardsBall said:

How is this not a first person account?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Click to expand...

Haven't I already pointed out to you what an eyewitness account is, a first-person account? It's a statement made by the person who actually witnessed the relevant events, described by that person in his or her own words. Luke doesn't pretend to be an eyewitness; he simply says that he knows stories attributed to eyewitnesses. In his narrative he never attributes elements of his story to specific witnesses, never quotes the words of a purported witness, never gives us any hint of who said what using what words.

Everything in the gospels is at best hearsay. The stories of Jesus contain numerous fictions, and are possibly entirely fictitious.

leov said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson: we don't understand the most fundamental aspects of our universe

Looks like not too much...

Click to expand...

I am not comfortable with this line of reasoning concerning our knowledge in any of the sciences. I am more comfortable with dialogue concerning what we know and what we are doing to expand our knowledge.
It is about as meaningful as starring at the heavens and smoking something.

shunyadragon said:

I am not comfortable with this line of reasoning concerning our knowledge in any of the sciences. I am more comfortable with dialogue concerning what we know and what we are doing to expand our knowledge.
It is about as meaningful as starring at the heavens and smoking something.

Click to expand...

Now you don't speak for a we. Nor do I. So what about you and I debate the limits of this "we" of yours and thus expand the knowledge of subjectivity.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Now you don't speak for a we. Nor do I. So what about you and I debate the limits of this "we" of yours and thus expand the knowledge of subjectivity.

Click to expand...

I spoke for my view and in reference to plural 'we' as our knowledge in the objective, as in science..

Expanding our knowledge of the subjectivity is like swimming in peanut butter.

I much prefer expanding our knowledge of the objectivity.

shunyadragon said:

Expanding our knowledge of the subjectivity is like swimming in peanut butter.

I much prefer expanding our knowledge of the objectivity.

Click to expand...

And this is of course objective and not subjective.
I prefer to do both.

mikkel_the_dane said:

And this is of course objective and not subjective.
I prefer to do both.

Click to expand...

The original post of the thread referred to Tyson's view of the search for the knowledge of the Cosmos and the known and unknown. In this I prefer the quest for objective knowledge of the Cosmos.

shunyadragon said:

The original post of the thread referred to Tyson's view of the search for the knowledge of the Cosmos and the known and unknown. In this I prefer the quest for objective knowledge of the Cosmos.

Click to expand...

Okay, but the Cosmos is also us, so I still prefer that we don't look at just one aspect. BTW it is not certain that you can avoid the unknown.

mikkel_the_dane said:

Okay, but the Cosmos is also us, so I still prefer that we don't look at just one aspect. BTW it is not certain that you can avoid the unknown.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with accepting that there will always be unknowns, especially when it comes to the knowledge of the cosmos beyond our universe, which is what I believe that Tyson was referring to.

The Cosmos is us? True, but as far as science and the objective goes I do not consider this a major issue of the unknown, unless you are referring to the subjective knowledge of philosophy and theology. I believe this will always be unknown in objective sense, and not what Tyson was referring to, but nonetheless it is the quest for the scientific search for the objective knowledge of the cosmos that is my priority.

I do have and always have had the quest of the spiritual knowledge of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence, but that is more a 'thinking,' contemplation, and dialogue exercise that is simply part of life. At present all is inconclusive and 'everything is in pencil with a large eraser in hand.' I acknowledge the possibility that no such spiritual realms exist.

blü 2 said:

As I said, after quite a bit of enquiry into the topic (including but by no means limited to Ehrman's book), I find no clincher either for an HJ or for no HJ.
Nope. I'm asking you what real quality Jesus would have if he were God that he wouldn't have if he weren't God, what test would have told any impartial onlooker whether he were indeed God or not.
No, resurrections were very common. Even in the bible tales ─
* Samuel came back after his death and spoke with Saul (though arguably he was a ghost, not a resurrected body.)
* Elijah raised the Zarephath woman’s son (1 Kings 17:17+).
* Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:32+).
* The man whose dead body touched Elisha’s bones was resurrected (2 Kings 13:21)
* Matthew describes the faithful dead at large in the streets of Jerusalem (Matthew 27:52-53).
* Jesus raised the Nain widow’s son (Luke 7:12+).
* Jesus raised Lazarus (John 11:41-44).
* Peter raised Tabitha / Dorcas (Acts 9:36-40).

and outside the bible there are endless examples, of which the following is a tiny sample ─

In Egypt, the god Osiris and in Greece, the god Dionysos, were put to death and came back to life.
In Greece,
Herakles, son of Zeus, died, was resurrected and became a god.
The mortal physician Asklepios raised Lykourgos, Kapaneos and Tyndareos from the dead, and dying was himself resurrected and became a god.
Glaukos, Hippolytos and Orion were resurrected too.
Eurydike (and Scandanavia’s Baldur) nearly made it back.
Sumer’s Dumuzi and Greece's Persephone and Adonis had to spend only half their time in the Underworld.

And so on. In those days, a divine figure who didn't have a good resurrection yarn was a nobody.

And in every single case, the evidence was as good as Jesus' ─ namely stories with various versions, none by an eyewitness, none contemporary.

Click to expand...

1) Every non-Jesus biblical resurrection was credited to Jehovah. Jesus claimed to do this and many other things on His own divine authority.

2) I appreciate your research but question HJ for an obvious reason--a dozen NT writers would not have correlating stories about a mythological person--a nobody who died on a cross like thousands of others--to promote a conspiracy at the risk of martyrdom. That's not a believable theory, and you cannot offer an alternative.

blü 2 said:

Haven't I already pointed out to you what an eyewitness account is, a first-person account? It's a statement made by the person who actually witnessed the relevant events, described by that person in his or her own words. Luke doesn't pretend to be an eyewitness; he simply says that he knows stories attributed to eyewitnesses. In his narrative he never attributes elements of his story to specific witnesses, never quotes the words of a purported witness, never gives us any hint of who said what using what words.

Everything in the gospels is at best hearsay. The stories of Jesus contain numerous fictions, and are possibly entirely fictitious.

Click to expand...

Again, I find most things in the NT are firsthand accounts. You are making a sweeping statement about the entire NT above, yet the author of Luke opens "Some of us eyewitnesses, who hark back to the very beginnings of Jesus's ministry, interviewed many other eyewitnesses also, then documented herein."

I'm okay with you giving a valid reason to disbelieve a text, but you're hardly addressing what the actual text says.

BilliardsBall said:

How is this not a first person account?

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Click to expand...

No not eyewitness.