Why does it matter if its factual ?

[blü 2]

With over 40,000 sects already of Christianity I think the point has been proven beyond doubt that neither human argument, speculation or cool reasoning is able to distinguish between what is factual and what is not.

I respectfully disagree. Cool reasoning, or as I'd put it, reasoned enquiry, is able to put rovers on Mars, map the brain, outline the only credible account of the start of the universe, find new medicines, and much more. Nothing else comes close.

Religious Forums[/URL] 5964121] The only way I believe of knowing the truth is from God Himself to inform us.

But alas, in my experience God neither says nor does. Other humans say, and they and nature do. And that's all.

Religious Forums[/URL] 5964121] And after Jesus He has sent Muhammad and the Quran, the Bab and His Writings and Baha’u’llah Who have confirmed what is allegorical, what is mere superstition and vain imaginings and what is truth.

Since that's part of our topic, what definition of 'truth' are you using here?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why would religions like that be any more "true religions" than any other?

(Though at this point, we're speaking hypothetically, since - IMO - the inherent tribalism of religion means that no religion is a cause for unity)

Because the original Founders and texts have always taught love, justice, unity and tolerance. It is the followers who after time have drifted away from the original teachings and caused strife and wars.

That is why religion is renewed from time to time because like everything else in this world it is born and eventually dies when it becomes infested with teachings contrary to what was originally taught. What remains is only the outward form but the spirit of love and unity is long gone so it is renewed from age to age.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I respectfully disagree. Cool reasoning, or as I'd put it, reasoned enquiry, is able to put rovers on Mars, map the brain, outline the only credible account of the start of the universe, find new medicines, and much more. Nothing else comes close.
But alas, in my experience God neither says nor does. Other humans say, and they and nature do. And that's all.
Since that's part of our topic, what definition of 'truth' are you using here?

The truth that I believe to be actual truth is the truth as brought to us by the Universal Teachers such as Buddha, Christ, Baha’u’llah and so on.

 

[blü 2]

Please don't quote received wisdom from biblical "scholars"

Name an NT author who states that [he] met Jesus. Please don't resort to received wisdom.

And if the epistle of Peter states that the author was an "eye witness" to Jesus then I am happy with that statement.

I & 2 Peter are pseudepigraphs. We have no reason to think their authors ever met Jesus.

Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, which as he states, was a research effort of people who knew Jesus. Luke also wrote The Acts. His work finishes about AD 64 - cut off mysteriously in a manner similar to the Greek historian Thucydides history.

The author of Luke and the author of certain parts of Acts may have been the same person. There is no clear evidence that the author was Luke the apostle.

 

[blü 2]

The truth that I believe to be actual truth is the truth as brought to us by the Universal Teachers such as Buddha, Christ, Baha’u’llah and so on.

I respect your right to think that. But on the basis of what evidence do you think you could persuade me to agree with you?

 

[PruePhillip]

Name an NT author who states that [he] met Jesus. Please don't resort to received wisdom.
I & 2 Peter are pseudepigraphs. We have no reason to think their authors ever met Jesus.
The author of Luke and the author of certain parts of Acts may have been the same person. There is no clear evidence that the author was Luke the apostle.

Peter was with Jesus. Peter wrote two of the epistles.
Calling this pseudo-epigraphical just creates a circular
argument for ridiculing the bible.

Luke never met Jesus, he just compiled material from
others, but he gave us the early history of the church,
up until he probably died in Rome with Paul and Peter.
If it wasn't for the slip of the pen we wouldn't know the
connection of Luke with the events in Acts - interesting
that so many bible figures gave no authorship, because
they didn't vaunt themselves.
Fortunately, as letters and the Gospels circulated, the
readers assigned to them the names of the authors.

I get tired of this Wikipedia style 'scholarship' that has
to question everything. Tonight I read how one 'scholar'
even questioned the Moab stele, calling it a Narnia
fantasy - all the stele did was commemorate a battle
over King Omri of Israel. Apparently even an extra-biblical
source, literally set in stone, won't convince people that
some minor king existed that was mentioned in the bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because the original Founders and texts have always taught love, justice, unity and tolerance. It is the followers who after time have drifted away from the original teachings and caused strife and wars.

So you don't think that the Gospels are "original texts" of Christianity?

That is why religion is renewed from time to time because like everything else in this world it is born and eventually dies when it becomes infested with teachings contrary to what was originally taught. What remains is only the outward form but the spirit of love and unity is long gone so it is renewed from age to age.

I get that this is the Baha'i belief. I find it divisive.

 

[blü 2]

Peter was with Jesus. Peter wrote two of the epistles.

No evidence suggests that Peter, a fisherman, wrote the epistles (in educated Greek, addressing issues not from his time) attributed to him.

Calling this pseudo-epigraphical just creates a circular argument for ridiculing the bible.

I don't ridicule the bible. I treat it as a set of ancient documents, each as susceptible to reasoned enquiry as any other ancient document. There is no meaning I might wish on it. On the exact contrary, I want to know with complete impartiality what it says.

Luke never met Jesus, he just compiled material

Are you familiar with the branch of the law dealing with hearsay evidence? And why the law deals with it as it does?

I get tired of this Wikipedia style 'scholarship' that has to question everything.

Why should one not question everything? Why should one not try to understand the basis on which one might think anything is true?

 

[PruePhillip]

No evidence suggests that Peter, a fisherman, wrote the epistles (in educated Greek, addressing issues not from his time) attributed to him.
I don't ridicule the bible. I treat it as a set of ancient documents, each as susceptible to reasoned enquiry as any other ancient document. There is no meaning I might wish on it. On the exact contrary, I want to know with complete impartiality what it says.
Are you familiar with the branch of the law dealing with hearsay evidence? And why the law deals with it as it does?
Why should one not question everything? Why should one not try to understand the basis on which one might think anything is true?

So, either Luke compiled material as he said, or he was an
eyewitness. Take your pick.
If Peter wrote two letters in his name I am fine with that.

In Solomon's case I am happy to attribute his sayings in
Proverbs to many authors. This king most likely compiled
all the wisdom literature of his time.
I see the hand of David in many of his Psalms. His outlook
as both rejected and reigning king gave him an incredible
picture of the suffering Messiah - rejected and pierced
upon a cross.

Some say that the Roman Catholic Church later redacted
the New Testament. That is nonsense - firstly by the time
this church rose the NT literature was well established as
cannon. Secondly a lot of this literature doesn't make the
church look good (ie the whore that sits on the seven hills
of Rome) yet it wasn't removed.
Instead the RCC chose to create its own body of literature
and its own saints who help to "progress" the Gospels.

 

[Jumi]

A literal interpretation also allows for mistakes in the story: maybe the author was an unreliable witness (or was recounting the story of an unreliable witness) and mistakes crept in. When we take a story as a literal account, we can always say "well... maybe the author got that detail wrong."

Indeed, that's what people spend their time with while discussing things from literal perspectives. Although it is lazy, it ends up taking more time if one were to go through it like that. I have no problem with your approach on some things that are presented as historical events. You have to be able to separate them from mythical and storytelling as well as mystical elements though. Because the lazy way is to assume it's all written yesterday with today's mindsets. Don't even mean the Bible and Quran, but also other so-called sacred texts.

Non-literalist interpretations don't allow these outs, though. You still need to approach assuming that every word was placed there deliberately, even if the reason wasn't "to recount something that actually happened."

Not really. For example reading the Tao T'eh C'hing you can easily be aware of different versions surviving where completely different words are used or the orders of the chapters in the book are shuffled, yet you can grasp the same ideas from the most common one in translation.

If the author intended the story to be non-literal, then every word has significance. Every word is important to the overall meaning.

What your understanding of the non-literalist approach is, is that its literal but substitute it for something like "fuzzy literal". You're not approaching the idea. Perhaps this is your ingrained approach. I have no problem with it, it's not just something I would take.

And with a non-literal interpretation, we can't assume that the author got details wrong. If the author is describing something that was constructed in their own head to express some meaning, then the author can't be an unrealiable witness: the author's understanding of the thing being described is the thing being described.

You're assuming still assuming a story about a literal event being central to everything. That's the cornerstone of taking a literalist approach.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Indeed, that's what people spend their time with while discussing things from literal perspectives. Although it is lazy, it ends up taking more time if one were to go through it like that. I have no problem with your approach on some things that are presented as historical events. You have to be able to separate them from mythical and storytelling as well as mystical elements though. Because the lazy way is to assume it's all written yesterday with today's mindsets. Don't even mean the Bible and Quran, but also other so-called sacred texts.


Not really. For example reading the Tao T'eh C'hing you can easily be aware of different versions surviving where completely different words are used or the orders of the chapters in the book are shuffled, yet you can grasp the same ideas from the most common one in translation.


What your understanding of the non-literalist approach is, is that its literal but substitute it for something like "fuzzy literal". You're not approaching the idea. Perhaps this is your ingrained approach. I have no problem with it, it's not just something I would take.


You're assuming still assuming a story about a literal event being central to everything. That's the cornerstone of taking a literalist approach.

Maybe try actually reading my posts instead of presuming that you know what I'm thinking.

 

[blü 2]

So, either Luke compiled material as he said, or he was an eyewitness. Take your pick.

As is well known, Luke is one of the synoptics, that is, Luke and Matthew are versions of the gospel of Mark with idiosyncrasies. There is little reason to think the author of Luke was Luke. There is reason to think the author of Luke also wrote parts of Acts.

If Peter wrote two letters in his name I am fine with that.

And if someone else wrote them, and that or some later person attributed them to Peter, I trust you're not cool with that?

 

[Jumi]

Maybe try actually reading my posts instead of presuming that you know what I'm thinking.

Ok. Can you highlight areas in my post that are problematic or feel are in the wrong?

And do note that I wasn't speaking about you, but in general about the literalist approach when I mentioned that it's a lazy approach.

 

[Jumi]

Back in grade school we were often given novels to read and try to analyze symbolic parts that authors had represented through their stories. The literalist would be like a reader who read Sherlock Holmes like a story about murders and detectives moving about. There are other approaches...

 

[PruePhillip]

As is well known, Luke is one of the synoptics, that is, Luke and Matthew are versions of the gospel of Mark with idiosyncrasies. There is little reason to think the author of Luke was Luke. There is reason to think the author of Luke also wrote parts of Acts.
And if someone else wrote them, and that or some later person attributed them to Peter, I trust you're not cool with that?

He said the letter is his. Honesty was a premium with these people.
The argument goes that Peter wouldn't have known Greek to have
written them. But he was young when he met Jesus and his
preaching was largely to a Greek speaking world. It's a hard language
to learn, as I have found out, but it doesn't preclude him learning it.
Also, he could have had a secretary.

 

[Augustus]

Are you familiar with the branch of the law dealing with hearsay evidence? And why the law deals with it as it does?

Why do you think a modern legalistic concept, where a certain type of evidence is only admissible in court under certain circumstances, is in any way a useful concept for analysing ancient historical evidence?

If the criteria for historical evidence is 'would be admissible in a contemporary court of law' we would have to rule out almost everything.

 

[blü 2]

Why do you think a modern legalistic concept, where a certain type of evidence is only admissible in court under certain circumstances, is in any way a useful concept for analyzing ancient historical evidence?

In law, the hearsay rule reminds us that with hearsay we have no eyewitness account, and that our source may be reporting something at twenty-fifth hand, and whichever way will be accurately or inaccurately reporting it without personal knowledge of what happened.

If the criteria for historical evidence is 'would be admissible in a contemporary court of law' we would have to rule out almost everything.

I agree. And so does historiography. You need to corroborate any ancient report from credible external sources to the greatest extent possible; and where there's no corroboration, you may form a cautious opinion based on the elsewhere-demonstrated reliability of your source, or refrain from any firm opinion.

 

[Augustus]

In law, the hearsay rule reminds us that with hearsay we have no eyewitness account, and that our source may be reporting something at twenty-fifth hand, and whichever way will be accurately or inaccurately reporting it without personal knowledge of what happened.

It is misleading though as it introduces an anachronism into thought.

Thinking of oral history and religious narrative (and the writing and redaction of these) as being 'hearsay' though seems to miss the point that these were not meant as objective historical records in the first place (hence the fact that Gospel narratives are contradictory at times).

These were stories written down by educated Greeks in the broader Roman empire, rather than poor Aramaic speaking Jews in Palestine, and related to spreading the 'Good News' of the living Christ.

I agree. And so does historiography. You need to corroborate any ancient report from credible external sources to the greatest extent possible; and where there's no corroboration, you may form a cautious opinion based on the elsewhere-demonstrated reliability of your source, or refrain from any firm opinion.

There is a text that refers to 'the Arabs of Muhammad' from the 630s, almost certainly this is 'hearsay', yet it serves as excellent documentary proof that Muhammad was a real person.

In court, something being hearsay reduces its credibility, in terms of historiography it may not.

Applying a modern legalistic term to ancient history offers no real benefits and is often an impediment to understanding.

 

[blü 2]

Thinking of oral history and religious narrative (and the writing and redaction of these) as being 'hearsay' though seems to miss the point that these were not meant as objective historical records in the first place (hence the fact that Gospel narratives are contradictory at times).

The question is along the lines of, 'What did the author of this particular text intend to convey'.

These were stories written down by educated Greeks in the broader Roman empire, rather than poor Aramaic speaking Jews in Palestine, and related to spreading the 'Good News' of the living Christ.

The author of Mark appears to have been a native speaker of Aramaic judging by his Greek, say people who know koine better than I do. That distinguishes him from the other authors.

There is a text that refers to 'the Arabs of Muhammad' from the 630s, almost certainly this is 'hearsay', yet it serves as excellent documentary proof that Muhammad was a real person.

I'm aware of that reference, but it's not a clincher for an historical Muhammad, just as 'James the brother of the Lord' is not a clincher for an historical Jesus.

In court, something being hearsay reduces its credibility, in terms of historiography it may not.

With a heavy accent on 'may'.

Applying a modern legalistic term to ancient history offers no real benefits and is often an impediment to understanding.

History does not operate by court rules, but the aim is still the same ─ to get as close as possible to accurate statements about what (if anything) happened. Corroborate, corroborate, corroborate.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So you don't think that the Gospels are "original texts" of Christianity?


I get that this is the Baha'i belief. I find it divisive.

We do believe in the Bible and Gospels as Abdul- Baha has written in a Bible.

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá