• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The odds of a Shakespearian sonnet

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
While there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus, it would appear to be the simplest explanation



Not at all. It Aint Necessarily So said that I was “guessing” instead of presenting an evidence supported opinion and that this presentation of what appeared to be the simplest explanation (but not a proof), was “a leap of faith”. My opinion, for which I presented reasons for holding, was in fact “applying reason to evidence” despite me being criticized for not doing that. [I was accused of stating “that the Jesus of the New Testament’ when I made it clear in the opening sentence that there is not definite proof of the existence of Jesus but only that it would appear to be the simplest explanation. The language “Jesus of the New Testament” implies belief in a supernatural miracle working entity, which I explicitly ruled out. I was also accused of calling others “ignorant” which I never did.

Yes, that was acrimonious.


You repeatedly claim evidence, which is my qualm, then claim to faith as evidence

I insist on helping so we can get over this little hiccough.

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Reason is not a factor

As you say "not definite proof" of Jesus, i.e. no evidence.

But feel free to say you have faith, you believe, it the simplest explanation, whatever.


Also

Acrimonious : angry and bitter.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Nope, you presented opinion. Do you want me to help you with the definition of evidence?

Yes seen your post 87 and replied to it to the extent warranted in post 88.

And my view is there is no proof of JC living as depicted in the Bible, definite or otherwise, therefore no need to waste time feeding a blind faith

I was never talking about the Jesus depicted in the Bible as being real. I explicitly ruled that out. I was talking all along about a historical non-magical Jesus. But it does not seem that any deviation from the ‘Bible Jesus or nothing’ dichotomy is allowed.

Evidence is a set of facts. It is a fact that the letters of Paul show that his readers are already familiar with various particulars about Jesus. He does not need to inform them of those particulars. What Paul does is to paint an elaborate supernatural veneer on the story, among other things giving an 'explanation' of why a messianic figure should get killed by the Romans. His explanation of it being a sin atonement sacrifice totally misses the mark if one looks into what is involved in a sin atonement sacrifice. He confuses the Paschal Lamb sacrifice with sin atonement and numerous other problems. Why would one make up a story about the Messiah being killed without a more convincing explanation than that? But if we were to look at it as a real Jesus getting crucified contrary to all expectations for a Messiah and Paul desperately trying to make it into something else, it sounds more believable than that the whole thing was made up. Like I said - simplest explanation.

It is a fact that a number of passages in Mark are quite accurate portrayals of life as it was in that region at the putative time of Jesus but that was not at all like that when Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple. The dominance of the House of Shammai form of Pharisaic thought but with remainders of the House of Hillel version (see the hand washing business in Mark 7), the rare incursion of Roman presence into everyday life (which ended with the Caligula incident) – these things reflect life in the region during the tenure of Pontius Pilate decades before Mark wrote. As such they sound like authentic early stories about Jesus, the upstart crowd pleasing preacher arguing against the self-aggrandizing Shammai Pharisees pushing more and more rules on people and ignoring the humanistic content of the Law. This idea of early traditions being carried forward is supported by the duplication of various stories in Mark. The two calming the sea episodes and the two feeding the multitudes narratives suggest that the stories were around long enough to split into several versions. Since Paul knows nothing at all about any of this, these traditions are of independent origin. That is, there is another source pointing to a real historical Jesus. Like I said – simplest explanation.

Do you have any alternative explanations for this? Or do you not have enough background knowledge to conduct a meaningful exchange on the topic? Or is it the ‘Bible Jesus or nothing’ dichotomy at work?

BTW your post #88 does not touch on this topic at all. It was about when the Bible was put together and the Pantera myth. But nothing at all about my simplest explanation proposal.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
When I use the word faith, I am referring to unsupported belief. Evidence based belief, assuming that all of the relevant evidence is considered, and that the belief is no more certain that the quality and quantity of that evidence supports, is not faith in the sense just defined.

Thus, all beliefs are either justified or insufficiently justified (faith), making all faith blind. Remember, the word evidence is related to the word evident. Believing without evidence is blind belief.



Here's the first definition of condone that I encountered: "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue." Do the authors of the Bible explicitly forbid or condemn either of these practices when discussing them? If not, they condone them.

I think this word is frequently misunderstood to mean endorse or approve. That's not what it means. You might even disapprove, but if you don't express an objection, your condoning that behavior.

We see this continually in the political drama playing out in America today. If you aren't objecting to certain moral and legal crimes, you're condoning them.



I don't see much chance of my returning to the faith short of convincing evidence that there is a god and that it is the God of the Christian Bible. Do you have that?

If not, thanks for the offer anyway.

Why would it take weeks to explore whether the Bible condemns or condones rape, slavery or genocide? What other book takes so much effort to read and understand?



I would like to know the truth, but you are correct that it is just barely possible that Lincoln was a fictional character and the story of his life was a hoax. The truth of the matter is that he almost certainly lived, but that there is room for doubt. Remember that quantity and quality of available evidence factor discussed above. There is a lot of good quality evidence that Lincoln lived, and so my confidence level of that being a fact is over 99%, but not 100%. Albeit just a small leap, it would still be a leap of faith to claim 100% certitude, which is not justified.



I'm guessing that you meant that it does matter if Jesus existed.

What I meant was that if he wasn't a god or sent by a god, it doesn't matter how much of the rest of the story is historical and how much is fabricated. I'm assuming that the supernatural feats attributed to Jesus such as a virgin birth and resurrection are very unlikely to be historical, so none of the rest matters.



Why assume that? Remaining agnostic works well. It isn't possible or necessary to say yes or no.

I understand why you consider all faith blind, but I'd like to hear your response to the Bible's take:

Hebrews 11:1 "...Faith is the evidence of unseen things."

There it is, just as we have good evidence, good reason to think the unseen sun will rise in the morning, or that we will still live tomorrow, biblical faith is looking at what God has accomplished in the past and trusting Him for the future.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The almost countless number of Christian denominations out there who can't agree on how to interpret the Bible suggests to me that interpreting it isn't as obvious as you imply

Correct if taking a surface-level view. Yet my church's statement of faith, ten points, is virtually the same as over 1,000 other sects!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Correct if taking a surface-level view. Yet my church's statement of faith, ten points, is virtually the same as over 1,000 other sects!
1,000 out of ~33,000? So you agree with something around 3% of other denominations?

Well, I guess you have to start somewhere. Still not widespread agreement, though.

And if we go by number of adherents, since you reject Catholic and Eastern Orthodox beliefs about the Bible (right?), you disagree with at least two thirds of Christians.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I understand why you consider all faith blind, but I'd like to hear your response to the Bible's take:

Hebrews 11:1 "...Faith is the evidence of unseen things."

There it is, just as we have good evidence, good reason to think the unseen sun will rise in the morning, or that we will still live tomorrow, biblical faith is looking at what God has accomplished in the past and trusting Him for the future.

That verse tells us that that writer of the Bible did not understand what evidence was either.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
That verse tells us that that writer of the Bible did not understand what evidence was either.

The original Greek of Hebrews 11:1 is probably better translated as ‘conviction’ than as ‘evidence’. If faith were evidence, then whatever one had faith in would exist. That is not what the writer is trying to say. The remainder of Hebrews 11 is about having faith that a promise will be fulfilled since it has divine authority behind it, citing many scriptural references to support this. A conviction that a divine promise will be kept is justified.

What is the promise that one is to have confidence in? The answer is in the previous chapter.

Hebrews 10:35-37
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

The promise is the return of Jesus and the reward of eternal life for the righteous.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I esteem faith, but you keep interpolating "blind" whereas biblically speaking, correct faith is evidence-based, discounting it being "blind".

I agree, that when people follow books with degenerate morals, such as Mein Kampf (genocide implied), it's a huge problem. Respectfully, I don't find the Bible condones rape or slavery or genocide. If we spend a few weeks exploring those three issues, and you come to understand that the Bible is against rape, against slavery and does not condone genocide, would you become born again?

It matters if Lincoln existed if you care to know what is the truth of a matter. It doesn't matter if Jesus existed if you believe the Bible is still giving a proscription for Heaven and against Hell!
Where does it say that?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I was never talking about the Jesus depicted in the Bible as being real. I explicitly ruled that out. I was talking all along about a historical non-magical Jesus. But it does not seem that any deviation from the ‘Bible Jesus or nothing’ dichotomy is allowed.

Evidence is a set of facts. It is a fact that the letters of Paul show that his readers are already familiar with various particulars about Jesus. He does not need to inform them of those particulars. What Paul does is to paint an elaborate supernatural veneer on the story, among other things giving an 'explanation' of why a messianic figure should get killed by the Romans. His explanation of it being a sin atonement sacrifice totally misses the mark if one looks into what is involved in a sin atonement sacrifice. He confuses the Paschal Lamb sacrifice with sin atonement and numerous other problems. Why would one make up a story about the Messiah being killed without a more convincing explanation than that? But if we were to look at it as a real Jesus getting crucified contrary to all expectations for a Messiah and Paul desperately trying to make it into something else, it sounds more believable than that the whole thing was made up. Like I said - simplest explanation.

It is a fact that a number of passages in Mark are quite accurate portrayals of life as it was in that region at the putative time of Jesus but that was not at all like that when Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple. The dominance of the House of Shammai form of Pharisaic thought but with remainders of the House of Hillel version (see the hand washing business in Mark 7), the rare incursion of Roman presence into everyday life (which ended with the Caligula incident) – these things reflect life in the region during the tenure of Pontius Pilate decades before Mark wrote. As such they sound like authentic early stories about Jesus, the upstart crowd pleasing preacher arguing against the self-aggrandizing Shammai Pharisees pushing more and more rules on people and ignoring the humanistic content of the Law. This idea of early traditions being carried forward is supported by the duplication of various stories in Mark. The two calming the sea episodes and the two feeding the multitudes narratives suggest that the stories were around long enough to split into several versions. Since Paul knows nothing at all about any of this, these traditions are of independent origin. That is, there is another source pointing to a real historical Jesus. Like I said – simplest explanation.

Do you have any alternative explanations for this? Or do you not have enough background knowledge to conduct a meaningful exchange on the topic? Or is it the ‘Bible Jesus or nothing’ dichotomy at work?

BTW your post #88 does not touch on this topic at all. It was about when the Bible was put together and the Pantera myth. But nothing at all about my simplest explanation proposal.

To you who wants to accept an explanation, the explanation that most massages your sensibilities is the one you see as simplest.
Correct, my post is based on what i consider most reliable.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'd like to hear your response to the Bible's take:

Hebrews 11:1 "...Faith is the evidence of unseen things."

My take on that? Sure.

Suppose that I have faith that vampires exist. Is that evidence of those unseen things? Hopefully, your answer is No.

Faith is not evidence. Evidence is that which is evident. Faith is only evidence that somebody is willing to believe by faith, that is, with insufficient justification, and of nothing else.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The original Greek of Hebrews 11:1 is probably better translated as ‘conviction’ than as ‘evidence’. If faith were evidence, then whatever one had faith in would exist. That is not what the writer is trying to say. The remainder of Hebrews 11 is about having faith that a promise will be fulfilled since it has divine authority behind it, citing many scriptural references to support this. A conviction that a divine promise will be kept is justified.

What is the promise that one is to have confidence in? The answer is in the previous chapter.

Hebrews 10:35-37
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

The promise is the return of Jesus and the reward of eternal life for the righteous.
Thank you. I don't mind if people admit that their beliefs are faith based. At least that is honest. But to try to claim that faith is evidence always grates on me.

I think that one of the reasons that they do so is because they realize that confidence should be earned.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
To you who wants to accept an explanation, the explanation that most massages your sensibilities is the one you see as simplest.
Correct, my post is based on what i consider most reliable.

If you are unwilling or unable to participate in a discussion involving the application of reason to evidence, just say so or simply stop replying. But to demand that no one be allowed to do so, offering nothing but insults along the way, raises the question of why you do not want this subject discussed.


What are you afraid of?
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Thank you. I don't mind if people admit that their beliefs are faith based. At least that is honest. But to try to claim that faith is evidence always grates on me.

I think that one of the reasons that they do so is because they realize that confidence should be earned.

To be clear, I was addressing only what the writer most likely wanted to be understood. I do not believe any of it. Although there are others to whom it IS a matter of faith (or sometimes anti-faith :) ) it is simply academic to me. This gives me the freedom to explore meanings without prejudging what they 'must' be.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
If you are unwilling or unable to participate in a discussion involving the application of reason to evidence, just say so or simply stop replying. But to demand that no one be allowed to do so, offering nothing but insults along the way, raises the question of why you do not want this subject discussed.


What are you afraid of?

It works both ways

And i have shown you the accepted definition of evidence.

Considering you were first to throw insult by attempting to demean my intelligence then i consider your accusations to be hypocritical

I have given my point, why do you insist it has no relevance in comparison to your "simple explanation" sans evidence
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
x
You repeatedly claim evidence, which is my qualm, then claim to faith as evidence

I insist on helping so we can get over this little hiccough.

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Reason is not a factor

As you say "not definite proof" of Jesus, i.e. no evidence.

But feel free to say you have faith, you believe, it the simplest explanation, whatever.


Also

Acrimonious : angry and bitter.

I have several times presented the evidence, sections of scripture that point to a knowledge of some religious figure named Jesus and the basics of the story, e.g., crucified, supposedly resurrected, already being widespread before the scriptures were written. The scriptures in question show Paul adding grandiose supernatural aspects onto the story in a way intended to smooth out the rough spots. (The messiah got killed??? Huh?)

I also referred to sections of scripture (in Mark) that show the existence of early traditions about Jesus dating to well before those scriptures were written. These traditions portray an environment that was long gone when Mark wrote. The duplication of certain passages in somewhat different forms suggests that they are old enough to have evolved independently. This also argues against Mark having invented them.

While we are at it, a new thought. Mark’s problematic and anti-climactic ending – empty tomb but no Jesus in sight – sounds like it could explain the origin of the resurrection idea. Matthew’s subsequent uber-dramatic efforts to counter the stolen body stories show, by his own admission, that these stories were making the rounds. So where did those stories start?

I continue to stand by my opinion that a real historic Jesus, but a non-magical one, is the simplest explanation of the evidence.

“Reason is not a factor.” Duh. Evidence by itself is mute. Reason must be applied to make anything of it. The concept of the working hypothesis is inherent in all the sciences, including history. The simplest explanation for a variety of facts is sought and the working hypothesis developed in that way is then discussed with others, who offer specific criticisms to support the idea or not. This guides further research. This is how knowledge is reached. Your insistence that no one is allowed to even offer a working hypothesis unless accompanied by absolute incontrovertible evidence not requiring any reasoning is at variance to the way that knowledge

You continue to claim that my proposal is faith based, which is obviously nonsensical. You want to say that I have ‘faith’ in Jesus in some religious sense. I have said that Paul invented and added on key features of Christianity that were not there to begin with. I have said that Mark did not have first-hand knowledge but inherited stories and invented a few of his own for discernible purposes. In addition, his ‘resurrection’ non-story suggests grave robbery, tales of which Matthew had to loudly counteract. Sounds like an early tradition and possibly the origin of the resurrection story Paul turns into an elaborate theology. Where is this faith you speak of?

As I said elsewhere, what is the reason for your refusal to deal with my proposal itself but instead to turn the discussion aside into the alleged impossibility of ever knowing anything and the definitions of words? Why such avoidance of the issue? Could it be that you might be afraid of the possibility that a real historical Jesus might have actually existed, even if non-magical? Nah, it couldn’t be that. Could it? My rejection of Christianity was based on research and the application of reason, rather than being emotion-based as is often the case. How about you?
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
It works both ways

And i have shown you the accepted definition of evidence.

Considering you were first to throw insult by attempting to demean my intelligence then i consider your accusations to be hypocritical

I have given my point, why do you insist it has no relevance in comparison to your "simple explanation" sans evidence

I presented evidence. You just do not want to admit that it is possible a real historical Jesus existed. Why are you so afraid of that possibility that you have to jump through all these convoluted hoops to avoid discussing it? If you were disinterested in the topic, you would not reply at all. If you were able to provide criticism of my proposal based on its merits, you would have done so. Instead you want to talk about the definition of words. a tired old trick when one has no relevant contribution, and the impossibility of ever knowing anything for sure, something I never claimed to do. Sure sounds like you are scared of the proposal itself. Why? I am an atheist but I am not afraid of the possibility of a real but non-magical Jesus having lived. My ideas are based on examination of evidence by the application of reason. Is it that your ideas abut the subject are based on emotion leaving no room for any alternative but total rejection? Sure sounds like it.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
All the evidence I need to say Paul appears to have been a phony is the ridiculous
snake- bite story.

Don't believe anything in Acts. That work is all about resolving problems and contradictions in earlier NT works. The stories are all invented for that purpose.

For me, the big clue that Paul was not what he was cracked up to be is that he claimed to have received from Jesus himself in visions a whole new theology that Jesus never bothered telling the Apostles about. BTW Luke in Acts changes this all around, having Paul converted to an already fully formed religion in a dramatic scene that Luke tells a total of three times to make sure that any memory of Paul's version got suppressed.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
x


I have several times presented the evidence, sections of scripture that point to a knowledge of some religious figure named Jesus and the basics of the story, e.g., crucified, supposedly resurrected, already being widespread before the scriptures were written. The scriptures in question show Paul adding grandiose supernatural aspects onto the story in a way intended to smooth out the rough spots. (The messiah got killed??? Huh?)

I also referred to sections of scripture (in Mark) that show the existence of early traditions about Jesus dating to well before those scriptures were written. These traditions portray an environment that was long gone when Mark wrote. The duplication of certain passages in somewhat different forms suggests that they are old enough to have evolved independently. This also argues against Mark having invented them.

While we are at it, a new thought. Mark’s problematic and anti-climactic ending – empty tomb but no Jesus in sight – sounds like it could explain the origin of the resurrection idea. Matthew’s subsequent uber-dramatic efforts to counter the stolen body stories show, by his own admission, that these stories were making the rounds. So where did those stories start?

I continue to stand by my opinion that a real historic Jesus, but a non-magical one, is the simplest explanation of the evidence.

“Reason is not a factor.” Duh. Evidence by itself is mute. Reason must be applied to make anything of it. The concept of the working hypothesis is inherent in all the sciences, including history. The simplest explanation for a variety of facts is sought and the working hypothesis developed in that way is then discussed with others, who offer specific criticisms to support the idea or not. This guides further research. This is how knowledge is reached. Your insistence that no one is allowed to even offer a working hypothesis unless accompanied by absolute incontrovertible evidence not requiring any reasoning is at variance to the way that knowledge

You continue to claim that my proposal is faith based, which is obviously nonsensical. You want to say that I have ‘faith’ in Jesus in some religious sense. I have said that Paul invented and added on key features of Christianity that were not there to begin with. I have said that Mark did not have first-hand knowledge but inherited stories and invented a few of his own for discernible purposes. In addition, his ‘resurrection’ non-story suggests grave robbery, tales of which Matthew had to loudly counteract. Sounds like an early tradition and possibly the origin of the resurrection story Paul turns into an elaborate theology. Where is this faith you speak of?

As I said elsewhere, what is the reason for your refusal to deal with my proposal itself but instead to turn the discussion aside into the alleged impossibility of ever knowing anything and the definitions of words? Why such avoidance of the issue? Could it be that you might be afraid of the possibility that a real historical Jesus might have actually existed, even if non-magical? Nah, it couldn’t be that. Could it? My rejection of Christianity was based on research and the application of reason, rather than being emotion-based as is often the case. How about you?

And again you are abusing the definition of evidenced. What you are doing is presenting your faith.

Evidence requires fact, not personal "reason" which boils down to interpretation.

I have studied your claims 25+ years ago, they failed on lack of evidence (by the real definition of evidence) unless you have something new i see no point in having a discussions with some one who manipulates the definition of evidence to suite his sensibilities and denies others the real definition

And then you go into insulting my intelligence again. Im done here
 
Top