How fascinating is it that even while religion, such as the Abrahamic faiths, profess love as their main focus, the studies show (as noted in the link I posted) that one defense is having a designated inferior. What comes to mind are slaves, women, and homosexuals. Dr. Sheldon Solomon states:
“It’s an unsavory one, but we think and remember Mark Landau and Daniel Sullivan talked about this in Israel. That unfortunately, it may be the case that humans require scapegoats and hate objects. I’m going to butcher my description of their studies, but I thought that it was quite profound when they showed that people were much happier when they had an ambiguous enemy upon which they could project their dis-ease. So, that’s one way that people keep death anxiety at bay.”
In regards to facing our mortality, Sheldon goes on to say that it:
“cannot be accomplished, as you know, without an incredible amount of anxiety and discomfort. Because to recognize that you are finite and not particularly pleased by that prospect is to momentarily divest yourself of all of the culturally and interpersonally constructed delusions and fantasy bonds that have sustained you for your whole life. And you can’t do that without momentarily –psychologically speaking– dangling on the precipice of oblivion.
Besides taking into account the Backfire Effect in online discussions, this helps explain why people with strong religious beliefs reject a lot of the information presented to them. There can be a lot at stake, especially when they’ve invested their whole life into a belief system. Their worldview gets turned upside down.
Also, in light of the stigma associated with being an unbeliever, some people are simply not willing to risk losing their jobs, their family, their marriage and their social network. It’s a damn shame that these beliefs tend to create a lot of fallout. Otherwise, I’d say, do what you have to do to cope with reality. However, those coping strategies can become a nightmare to others.
Even if you believe in the Supernatural, the Resurrection Story is not believable.
One of the primary lines of attack that Christians use against skeptics of the Resurrection is that we are biased against the supernatural. If we would just allow for the supernatural, they say, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus would be undeniable.
But there is a problem.
Muslims believe in the supernatural and they do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Jews believe in the supernatural, and even more, they believe that the Old Testament is the Word of God and believe in the prophecies of a coming messiah! So why don’t these people believe the Christian evidence for the Resurrection?
Answer: Because the evidence presented by Christians to support their belief that this supernatural event actually took place is so very, very weak that even if one believes in the supernatural it is completely unbelievable.
Below is a link to a phenomenal article by a Jewish rabbi in which he blows the Christian “evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus out of the water, and, explains why very, very few Jews have believed this tall tale during the last 2,000 years:
Below is an excerpt from a Jewish article regarding Paul of Tarsus that I would recommend that everyone, especially Brandon, read.
The following description of Paul is preserved in “Acta Pauli et Theclæ,” an apocryphal book which has been proved to be older and in some respects of greater historic value than the canonical Acts of the Apostles (see Conybeare, “Apollonius’ Apology and Acts, and Other Monuments of Early Christianity,” pp. 49-88, London, 1894):
“A man of moderate stature, with crisp [scanty] hair, crooked legs, blue eyes, large knit brows, and long nose, at times looking like a man, at times like an angel, Paul came forward and preached to the men of Iconium: ‘Blessed are they that keep themselves chaste [unmarried]; for they shall be called the temple of God. Blessed are they that mortify their bodies and souls; for unto them speaketh God. Blessed are they that despise the world; for they shall be pleasing to God. Blessed be the souls and bodies of virgins; for they shall receive the reward of their chastity.'”It was by such preaching that “he ensnared the souls of young men and maidens, enjoining them to remain single “(Conybeare, l.c. pp. 62, 63, 67; comp. ib. pp. 24-25; Gal. iii. 38; I Cor. vii. 34-36; Matt. xix. 12; Clement of Rome, Epistle ii. § 12).
It is odd that many Christians have not investigated why Jews reject Jesus as the messiah. These people believe in the supernatural, believe the teachings and prophecies of the Old Testament, yet they reject Jesus as the messiah, and most definitely reject him as God. I recommend that every Christian find out why Jews hold this position.
We Christians were taught as children that the reason the Jews do not believe is that God has hardened their hearts due to their stubborn, willful sin and their rejection of his Son. Isn’t it possible that this excuse for their unbelief was invented by the Church as a cover for the fact that the Christian evidence for their claims are so pathetically weak that the people most knowledgeable with the promises of Yahweh overwhelmingly rejected it.
(“Overwhelming”. We seem to be using that word a lot, aren’t we?)
Gary, to have the Jews believe his story, the Christians had to talk about the second coming of Jesus. This was intended to soften the failed Messiah that this Jesus was. Interesting the things you learn when you look around.
That’s an interesting article, yet it’s worth noting it was written in 1906.
There has been a fair bit of progress in biblical scholarship since then.
This excerpt is from Rational Wiki.
There is no evidence for Paul outside the Bible. No records of him ever visiting the kings and other powerful authority figures he supposedly held audiences with, no Jewish records of a Christian-hunter gone rogue, etc. Even the usual suspects brought up in defense of a historical Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus, etc, have nothing to say on Paul. That said, seven of the documents attributed to Paul do appear from textual analysis to be written by the same person. This is considered reasonable evidence that some single individual performed the role, and we may as well call him Paul, as does the author of Acts, thought by scholars to have also written the Gospel According to Luke. Even proof of the common authorship of some of these books, though, does not prove that Paul ever met Jesus, nor that Jesus ever existed.
“seven of the documents attributed to Paul do appear from textual analysis to be written by the same person.” – As I’ve often said, 6 of the 13 letters are forgeries:
Timothy I
Timothy II
Titus
Thessalonians II
Ephesians
Colossians
I said that God inspires the authors without dictating to them, and he uses their writings to teach truths.
So, basically, you think that God gave them some important ideas, but the rest was done on their own? This is a very vague theory and one that would be hard to prove or disprove. Without any clear definition you could pretty much say that anything or everything is divinely inspired. Perhaps C.S. Lewis or A.W. Tozer were divinely inspired too.
If these stories we are discussing (basically Moses and Joshua) are “fictionalised history”, we can’t really say exactly how much of fiction and history is there.
I think it’s interesting that you are pretty much agnostic concerning Moses, but then take a firm stance when it comes to Jesus. It seems to me we should be uncertain about the accounts of Jesus too.
Of course there are many differences in the two situations, … but I think the analogy is still good.
I think the differences are too severe to try and justify one with the other. It’s like saying “because there are instances where I trust my friends to babysit my children, it will also be okay to have a stranger babysit them.”
Hi Dave, I can only explain how I see things as someone who has been a questioning christian for something like 53 years.
” Without any clear definition you could pretty much say that anything or everything is divinely inspired.”
The problem here, I think, is that some of us moderns have fixed on the word “inspiration”. But I don’t find that word very often in the Bible. A quick look in an online concordance confirmed this. The word “inspiration” didn’t appear anywhere, and there are only five occurrences of the word “inspired”, and only one of the, (2 Tim 3:16) is referring to the Bible. And the word used there means “God-breathed”, which is ambiguous in meaning.
Now I’m not saying there are not concepts close to “inspired”, but I am saying you, and millions of other people discussing this matter, are bring our own concepts to the Bible when we should rather be starting with what it actually says, and what the authoritative people (Jesus and the apostles) actually did.
That is why I always start with what the experts say about the NT – the historians who help us know what we can be confident actually happened and what we cannot be confident of, and the textual/Greek/first century cultural experts who help us understand the meaning of what is said. (I think the important things are clear, but expertise is important when discussing more difficult matters.)
So the most important things don’t (IMO) require us to have a view of inspiration, just read and understand the text like we would any other historical text. So my advice to anyone struggling with understanding which parts are supposed to be “inspired” is to start off assuming none of it is, and go from there.
“I think it’s interesting that you are pretty much agnostic concerning Moses, but then take a firm stance when it comes to Jesus. It seems to me we should be uncertain about the accounts of Jesus too.”
I can’t see the logic of this. I accept the stories of Moses as fictionalised history because the most persuasive and the majority of experts tell me so. So it’s similar with Jesus. I accept the gospels as basically historical, but with a significant amount that is arguable, because that is what the experts tell me. The stories are very different genres with very different amounts of corroborative evidence.
I have never suggested that anyone initially do anything about any of these stories but accept what the experts say – that is why I commonly reference what they say and argue others should do the same. This is a clear principle I follow and it leads to different results in the case of Moses and Jesus – just as it would lead to different results with regard to Alexander, Horus, Sargon, Julius Caesar, the real Akhenaten, Gilgamesh or Romulus and Remus.
“It’s like saying “because there are instances where I trust my friends to babysit my children, it will also be okay to have a stranger babysit them.””
Again, I’m sorry, I can’t see the logic of this. I am saying that in many cases in life, especially with regard to people, we act based on uncertain evidence. We base our choice on as much evidence as we can get, but then we still choose in the face of some degree of uncertainty. That is true, I am saying, in getting married, and in choosing to follow Jesus, and it is true with regard to babysitters. No matter how well we know someone, we cannot be certain that they will behave rightly as a baby sitter. But the uncertainty in choosing a friend is small, so we go ahead, but the uncertainty in the case of a stranger is large (because we have little evidence about them) so we wouldn’t ask them to babysit.
So no sensible person would do what you suggest, and the principle I am espousing leads to exactly that result. And it’s no surprise, because that is how sensible people make decisions. All I am suggesting is that it doesn’t require some new principle to believe in Jesus, just the same principle we generally adopt in all of life. The real difference between you and I, I suggest, is not our understanding of evidence, uncertainty and faith, but the fact that you don’t think the evidence for Jesus is as strong as I do – and of course the fact that our personal experiences have been different, and they have consequences too.
Hi Dave, I can only explain how I see things as someone who has been a questioning christian for something like 53 years.
Hi UnkleE, I appreciate your input and the fact that you do question things and contemplate the hard issues.
So my advice to anyone struggling with understanding which parts are supposed to be “inspired” is to start off assuming none of it is, and go from there.
I agree with your assessment of the Bible saying very little about inspiration. Perhaps this is something that has just been drilled in to me – so it’s hard to consider other possibilities. If I start off assuming that none of it is inspired and go from there, it seems likely that I will always consider it as such.
I have never suggested that anyone initially do anything about any of these stories but accept what the experts say
Accept? Perhaps you meant consider. I don’t think any of us should automatically accept what a scholar says. They might be experts, but they also have motives and bias. I think we should pay attention to the evidence that they uncover, but give careful and skeptical consideration to their conclusions.
The real difference between you and I, I suggest, is not our understanding of evidence, uncertainty and faith, but the fact that you don’t think the evidence for Jesus is as strong as I do
Yes, this is very true. I also think that you would be hard pressed to find another instance in your life where you have based your life decisions on something with equivalent evidence. I don’t think you would propose to your wife if you had never met her and only heard non-eyewitness testimony about her. I don’t think you would allow your children or grandchildren to be watched by strangers whom you had never met and only heard non-eyewitness testimony of. You are right. No sensible person would do this.
All I am suggesting is that it doesn’t require some new principle to believe in Jesus, just the same principle we generally adopt in all of life.
It might be the same principle, but the standards are not the same, which, to me, makes it different.
An excerpt from another very good Jewish article describing the Christian evidence for the Resurrection as truly pathetic, and, therefore, the reason why the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars reject this Christian supernatural claim:
It is also possible that some of the disciples removed the body from the grave. Matthew tells us that this is what the general population believed at that time. If this were the case it is obvious that the disciples who actually removed the body would not believe the resurrection story, but the rest of the following would have no problem believing it.
Some missionaries try to negate the plausibility of these scenarios. They point to the guards that Matthew places to protect the grave, and to the enormous rock which prevented access to the grave. But we must note that according to the book of Matthew, the general population who were far more familiar than the circumstances than we are, considered it entirely plausible that the body was stolen. The book of John reports that Mary who was an eyewitness to much of what was happening, thought it reasonable to assume that the corpse was removed by the caretakers of the burial site. If these people who were familiar with the ways of the times thought these scenarios to be plausible, then we have no right to differ.
Another rather simple possibility that would have the followers of Jesus believing a resurrection story, is the scenario in which some followers deliberately lied and the rest believed. Those who lied would not have a guilty conscience about it. These people were convinced of the truth of Jesus’ mission long before the death of their leader. They were already convinced that he healed the blind, and resurrected the dead. What would a little lie do to their conscience if they were promoting what they considered to be the greatest truth that exists? The rest of the following would have little problem believing the “reliable” testimony of their fellow devotees. There could also have been some imaginary “sightings” similar to the Elvis Presley sightings that are commonplace today. There are other possibilities that come to mind, in any case the garbled story of the Christian Scriptures does not deserve so much consideration.
Why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the resurrection story touted by Jesus’ followers? This question is based on the assumption that the resurrection story is actually true. When we hear the story of the resurrection we are faced with two choices. We can assume that it did happen, or we can assume that it did not happen. If it did not happen, then the story was made up. It does not matter much if the story was deliberately invented by his followers, or if his followers were mistaken in their assumption that the story is true. In any case, if the story is not true, then there is no reason to assume that the story began circulating so soon after Jesus’ death. In fact it is quite improbable that the story began to be heard in the semi-coherent form that it possesses today, in the weeks following Jesus’ demise. If the story is not true than it is reasonable to assume that it took months if not years for a clear story to get around. In that time Jesus’ body would have been totally unrecognizable to anyone. By that time it would have been futile to exhume his body. Since all that would have been left would be a decayed corpse, his followers could claim that the body is not that of their beloved teacher.
Furthermore it is possible that Jesus’ opponents could not find his grave. Since time had passed between his burial and the time that the resurrection story got to the ears of Jesus’ opponents there could easily have arisen confusion concerning the exact location of his grave. This is even more plausible when we realize that at the time of his death his opponents did not consider it important to note where exactly he is buried.
Last but not least we must ask ourselves a basic question. How could we know that his opponents did not dig up his body in order to disprove the resurrection story? If the governing authorities did exhume the decaying corpse and display it in order to discount the claims of his followers, how would we hear about it today? Realize, that if such an event indeed happened, the record would have to survive centuries of Catholic censorship in order to arrive here today. That is asking for the impossible. If indeed the body was brought to the attention of the public then why would his disciples still believe the resurrection story? They probably claimed that the body displayed by the authorities was not the one that belonged to their teacher. Who knows? And frankly, who cares.
G’day Dave, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you too.
“If I start off assuming that none of it is inspired and go from there, it seems likely that I will always consider it as such.”
You can find some discussion in christian circles about whether we believe in Jesus because we believe in the Bible, or vice versa. I am firmly in the second group. So I wouldn’t expect you to think the Bible was inspired, whatever you might mean if you used those words. But if you came to believe in Jesus, on the basis of the NT as a historical text, the game changes. God exists after all, and he cared enough to send Jesus, and Jesus treated the Tanakh as his scriptures even if he didn’t treat them as inviolate. You might then decide to accept the Bible as inspired in some sense, as God-breathed (whatever you might think that would mean), etc.
“Accept? Perhaps you meant consider. I don’t think any of us should automatically accept what a scholar says. They might be experts, but they also have motives and bias. I think we should pay attention to the evidence that they uncover, but give careful and skeptical consideration to their conclusions.”
Yeah, that is fair comment. I certainly don’t accept what every expert says, though I am willing to consider it, because obviously they do differ on many things. But where the experts are largely in agreement, I see little alternative than to then accept what they say, – if the consensus is across viewpoints, then bias is largely eliminated.
And that is the case with the NT. There are many things which almost all scholars accept, and they are the things I quote – and I usually quote non-believing scholars to demonstrate that. But I don’t suggest people necessarily accept things that the scholars are in significant disagreement about. So your comment is a fair clarification.
“I also think that you would be hard pressed to find another instance in your life where you have based your life decisions on something with equivalent evidence. I don’t think you would propose to your wife if you had never met her and only heard non-eyewitness testimony about her.”
I think this is a most interesting question. Obviously you are right in the statement about proposing marriage, but I don’t think you are right in the conclusion you draw.
Firstly, I was using this analogy to address the question of evidence vs uncertainty and faith. I feel comfortable with the analogy on that level. And just because an analogy works on one level doesn’t mean it has to apply on other levels as well. It is only an analogy.
Secondly, it isn’t a matter of how much evidence in an absolute sense. As long as the evidence we have makes it more likely to be true than any other option, then that surely is enough? Who would choose a less likely option?
So what is an appropriate level of evidence in the case of Jesus?
There are some things that you have to make your mind up and then stick with it, while there are other things that you can give it a try and see what you think. Traditional marriage for life is theoretically in the first category (though these days it has become somewhat less so), so you have to be very sure before you jump in. Bungee jumping is a bit similar – it is too late when you’re halfway down deciding you’re not sure.
On the other hand, finding you way through a forest is an exercise that allows you to adjust course as you go, and if you get your initial path wrong, it isn’t too late to change. Working at a career is a bit the same. Doing science is likewise – you don’t have to prove it from an armchair before you start, you move forward by making hypotheses, proving them wrong or verifying them, making a new hypothesis, etc.
So where does christianity fit? Obviously if it is true then it is important, but how much do we need to know before we start? I suggest it is somewhere in the middle. You wouldn’t want to commit to following Jesus without having good evidence, but it isn’t something you can’t pull out of if you decide it’s not right after all – as many of you guys know.
So I think there is enough evidence to say that christianity is more likely to be true than not true. In that case, and granted one can pull out at any time, I can’t see why anyone would think they needed more evidence – it just being more probable is enough. Now again, you don’t think that is the case at present so you can’t make the same choice that I have. But I can only say again that I don’t think it’s the need for more evidence, its the balance of the evidence for and against (as you see it) that is stopping you.
It details clearly why unklee’s ( and any other christian) methodology and supposed reliance on supposed experts is flawed to the core.
Here’s a snippet ….
The Christian cannot do Jesus research on historical-critical principles. Regardless of the pressures of the academic world to conform to prevailing methodological standards, a Christian Jesus researcher ought to take the path of faith, even if this means loss of academic reputation or position:
That’s not all I’ve got, but I think I won’t answer anyway thanks. I have retired from this thread, remember, except for my discussion with Dave. But thanks for asking.
Finding Truth 
Nan, just saw your newest post come across my reader. We were on the same wavelength. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
How fascinating is it that even while religion, such as the Abrahamic faiths, profess love as their main focus, the studies show (as noted in the link I posted) that one defense is having a designated inferior. What comes to mind are slaves, women, and homosexuals. Dr. Sheldon Solomon states:
LikeLiked by 1 person
In regards to facing our mortality, Sheldon goes on to say that it:
Besides taking into account the Backfire Effect in online discussions, this helps explain why people with strong religious beliefs reject a lot of the information presented to them. There can be a lot at stake, especially when they’ve invested their whole life into a belief system. Their worldview gets turned upside down.
Also, in light of the stigma associated with being an unbeliever, some people are simply not willing to risk losing their jobs, their family, their marriage and their social network. It’s a damn shame that these beliefs tend to create a lot of fallout. Otherwise, I’d say, do what you have to do to cope with reality. However, those coping strategies can become a nightmare to others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“unwilling to ever abandon the warm, fuzzy feelings” = dopamine addiction
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if you believe in the Supernatural, the Resurrection Story is not believable.
One of the primary lines of attack that Christians use against skeptics of the Resurrection is that we are biased against the supernatural. If we would just allow for the supernatural, they say, the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus would be undeniable.
But there is a problem.
Muslims believe in the supernatural and they do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Jews believe in the supernatural, and even more, they believe that the Old Testament is the Word of God and believe in the prophecies of a coming messiah! So why don’t these people believe the Christian evidence for the Resurrection?
Answer: Because the evidence presented by Christians to support their belief that this supernatural event actually took place is so very, very weak that even if one believes in the supernatural it is completely unbelievable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Below is a link to a phenomenal article by a Jewish rabbi in which he blows the Christian “evidence” for the Resurrection of Jesus out of the water, and, explains why very, very few Jews have believed this tall tale during the last 2,000 years:
https://outreachjudaism.org/resurrection-evidence/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary, thanks for the link. Great read
LikeLike
Below is an excerpt from a Jewish article regarding Paul of Tarsus that I would recommend that everyone, especially Brandon, read.
The following description of Paul is preserved in “Acta Pauli et Theclæ,” an apocryphal book which has been proved to be older and in some respects of greater historic value than the canonical Acts of the Apostles (see Conybeare, “Apollonius’ Apology and Acts, and Other Monuments of Early Christianity,” pp. 49-88, London, 1894):
“A man of moderate stature, with crisp [scanty] hair, crooked legs, blue eyes, large knit brows, and long nose, at times looking like a man, at times like an angel, Paul came forward and preached to the men of Iconium: ‘Blessed are they that keep themselves chaste [unmarried]; for they shall be called the temple of God. Blessed are they that mortify their bodies and souls; for unto them speaketh God. Blessed are they that despise the world; for they shall be pleasing to God. Blessed be the souls and bodies of virgins; for they shall receive the reward of their chastity.'”It was by such preaching that “he ensnared the souls of young men and maidens, enjoining them to remain single “(Conybeare, l.c. pp. 62, 63, 67; comp. ib. pp. 24-25; Gal. iii. 38; I Cor. vii. 34-36; Matt. xix. 12; Clement of Rome, Epistle ii. § 12).
It is odd that many Christians have not investigated why Jews reject Jesus as the messiah. These people believe in the supernatural, believe the teachings and prophecies of the Old Testament, yet they reject Jesus as the messiah, and most definitely reject him as God. I recommend that every Christian find out why Jews hold this position.
We Christians were taught as children that the reason the Jews do not believe is that God has hardened their hearts due to their stubborn, willful sin and their rejection of his Son. Isn’t it possible that this excuse for their unbelief was invented by the Church as a cover for the fact that the Christian evidence for their claims are so pathetically weak that the people most knowledgeable with the promises of Yahweh overwhelmingly rejected it.
(“Overwhelming”. We seem to be using that word a lot, aren’t we?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you would like to read the entire article regarding Paul of Tarsus (from the Jewish Encyclopedia) here it is:
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13232-saul-of-tarsus
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, to have the Jews believe his story, the Christians had to talk about the second coming of Jesus. This was intended to soften the failed Messiah that this Jesus was. Interesting the things you learn when you look around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gary
That’s an interesting article, yet it’s worth noting it was written in 1906.
There has been a fair bit of progress in biblical scholarship since then.
This excerpt is from Rational Wiki.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus
A made-up Paul?
Quite likely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary – perhaps you’ll find this informative: The Acts Seminar.
LikeLike
“seven of the documents attributed to Paul do appear from textual analysis to be written by the same person.” – As I’ve often said, 6 of the 13 letters are forgeries:
Timothy I
Timothy II
Titus
Thessalonians II
Ephesians
Colossians
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, basically, you think that God gave them some important ideas, but the rest was done on their own? This is a very vague theory and one that would be hard to prove or disprove. Without any clear definition you could pretty much say that anything or everything is divinely inspired. Perhaps C.S. Lewis or A.W. Tozer were divinely inspired too.
I think it’s interesting that you are pretty much agnostic concerning Moses, but then take a firm stance when it comes to Jesus. It seems to me we should be uncertain about the accounts of Jesus too.
I think the differences are too severe to try and justify one with the other. It’s like saying “because there are instances where I trust my friends to babysit my children, it will also be okay to have a stranger babysit them.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Dave, I can only explain how I see things as someone who has been a questioning christian for something like 53 years.
” Without any clear definition you could pretty much say that anything or everything is divinely inspired.”
The problem here, I think, is that some of us moderns have fixed on the word “inspiration”. But I don’t find that word very often in the Bible. A quick look in an online concordance confirmed this. The word “inspiration” didn’t appear anywhere, and there are only five occurrences of the word “inspired”, and only one of the, (2 Tim 3:16) is referring to the Bible. And the word used there means “God-breathed”, which is ambiguous in meaning.
Now I’m not saying there are not concepts close to “inspired”, but I am saying you, and millions of other people discussing this matter, are bring our own concepts to the Bible when we should rather be starting with what it actually says, and what the authoritative people (Jesus and the apostles) actually did.
That is why I always start with what the experts say about the NT – the historians who help us know what we can be confident actually happened and what we cannot be confident of, and the textual/Greek/first century cultural experts who help us understand the meaning of what is said. (I think the important things are clear, but expertise is important when discussing more difficult matters.)
So the most important things don’t (IMO) require us to have a view of inspiration, just read and understand the text like we would any other historical text. So my advice to anyone struggling with understanding which parts are supposed to be “inspired” is to start off assuming none of it is, and go from there.
“I think it’s interesting that you are pretty much agnostic concerning Moses, but then take a firm stance when it comes to Jesus. It seems to me we should be uncertain about the accounts of Jesus too.”
I can’t see the logic of this. I accept the stories of Moses as fictionalised history because the most persuasive and the majority of experts tell me so. So it’s similar with Jesus. I accept the gospels as basically historical, but with a significant amount that is arguable, because that is what the experts tell me. The stories are very different genres with very different amounts of corroborative evidence.
I have never suggested that anyone initially do anything about any of these stories but accept what the experts say – that is why I commonly reference what they say and argue others should do the same. This is a clear principle I follow and it leads to different results in the case of Moses and Jesus – just as it would lead to different results with regard to Alexander, Horus, Sargon, Julius Caesar, the real Akhenaten, Gilgamesh or Romulus and Remus.
“It’s like saying “because there are instances where I trust my friends to babysit my children, it will also be okay to have a stranger babysit them.””
Again, I’m sorry, I can’t see the logic of this. I am saying that in many cases in life, especially with regard to people, we act based on uncertain evidence. We base our choice on as much evidence as we can get, but then we still choose in the face of some degree of uncertainty. That is true, I am saying, in getting married, and in choosing to follow Jesus, and it is true with regard to babysitters. No matter how well we know someone, we cannot be certain that they will behave rightly as a baby sitter. But the uncertainty in choosing a friend is small, so we go ahead, but the uncertainty in the case of a stranger is large (because we have little evidence about them) so we wouldn’t ask them to babysit.
So no sensible person would do what you suggest, and the principle I am espousing leads to exactly that result. And it’s no surprise, because that is how sensible people make decisions. All I am suggesting is that it doesn’t require some new principle to believe in Jesus, just the same principle we generally adopt in all of life. The real difference between you and I, I suggest, is not our understanding of evidence, uncertainty and faith, but the fact that you don’t think the evidence for Jesus is as strong as I do – and of course the fact that our personal experiences have been different, and they have consequences too.
LikeLike
Hi UnkleE, I appreciate your input and the fact that you do question things and contemplate the hard issues.
I agree with your assessment of the Bible saying very little about inspiration. Perhaps this is something that has just been drilled in to me – so it’s hard to consider other possibilities. If I start off assuming that none of it is inspired and go from there, it seems likely that I will always consider it as such.
Accept? Perhaps you meant consider. I don’t think any of us should automatically accept what a scholar says. They might be experts, but they also have motives and bias. I think we should pay attention to the evidence that they uncover, but give careful and skeptical consideration to their conclusions.
Yes, this is very true. I also think that you would be hard pressed to find another instance in your life where you have based your life decisions on something with equivalent evidence. I don’t think you would propose to your wife if you had never met her and only heard non-eyewitness testimony about her. I don’t think you would allow your children or grandchildren to be watched by strangers whom you had never met and only heard non-eyewitness testimony of. You are right. No sensible person would do this.
It might be the same principle, but the standards are not the same, which, to me, makes it different.
LikeLiked by 5 people
An excerpt from another very good Jewish article describing the Christian evidence for the Resurrection as truly pathetic, and, therefore, the reason why the overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars reject this Christian supernatural claim:
It is also possible that some of the disciples removed the body from the grave. Matthew tells us that this is what the general population believed at that time. If this were the case it is obvious that the disciples who actually removed the body would not believe the resurrection story, but the rest of the following would have no problem believing it.
Some missionaries try to negate the plausibility of these scenarios. They point to the guards that Matthew places to protect the grave, and to the enormous rock which prevented access to the grave. But we must note that according to the book of Matthew, the general population who were far more familiar than the circumstances than we are, considered it entirely plausible that the body was stolen. The book of John reports that Mary who was an eyewitness to much of what was happening, thought it reasonable to assume that the corpse was removed by the caretakers of the burial site. If these people who were familiar with the ways of the times thought these scenarios to be plausible, then we have no right to differ.
Another rather simple possibility that would have the followers of Jesus believing a resurrection story, is the scenario in which some followers deliberately lied and the rest believed. Those who lied would not have a guilty conscience about it. These people were convinced of the truth of Jesus’ mission long before the death of their leader. They were already convinced that he healed the blind, and resurrected the dead. What would a little lie do to their conscience if they were promoting what they considered to be the greatest truth that exists? The rest of the following would have little problem believing the “reliable” testimony of their fellow devotees. There could also have been some imaginary “sightings” similar to the Elvis Presley sightings that are commonplace today. There are other possibilities that come to mind, in any case the garbled story of the Christian Scriptures does not deserve so much consideration.
Why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the resurrection story touted by Jesus’ followers? This question is based on the assumption that the resurrection story is actually true. When we hear the story of the resurrection we are faced with two choices. We can assume that it did happen, or we can assume that it did not happen. If it did not happen, then the story was made up. It does not matter much if the story was deliberately invented by his followers, or if his followers were mistaken in their assumption that the story is true. In any case, if the story is not true, then there is no reason to assume that the story began circulating so soon after Jesus’ death. In fact it is quite improbable that the story began to be heard in the semi-coherent form that it possesses today, in the weeks following Jesus’ demise. If the story is not true than it is reasonable to assume that it took months if not years for a clear story to get around. In that time Jesus’ body would have been totally unrecognizable to anyone. By that time it would have been futile to exhume his body. Since all that would have been left would be a decayed corpse, his followers could claim that the body is not that of their beloved teacher.
Furthermore it is possible that Jesus’ opponents could not find his grave. Since time had passed between his burial and the time that the resurrection story got to the ears of Jesus’ opponents there could easily have arisen confusion concerning the exact location of his grave. This is even more plausible when we realize that at the time of his death his opponents did not consider it important to note where exactly he is buried.
Last but not least we must ask ourselves a basic question. How could we know that his opponents did not dig up his body in order to disprove the resurrection story? If the governing authorities did exhume the decaying corpse and display it in order to discount the claims of his followers, how would we hear about it today? Realize, that if such an event indeed happened, the record would have to survive centuries of Catholic censorship in order to arrive here today. That is asking for the impossible. If indeed the body was brought to the attention of the public then why would his disciples still believe the resurrection story? They probably claimed that the body displayed by the authorities was not the one that belonged to their teacher. Who knows? And frankly, who cares.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To read the full article:
http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/answers/jewish-polemics/texts/scriptural-studies/blumenthal/resurrection/
LikeLike
G’day Dave, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you too.
“If I start off assuming that none of it is inspired and go from there, it seems likely that I will always consider it as such.”
You can find some discussion in christian circles about whether we believe in Jesus because we believe in the Bible, or vice versa. I am firmly in the second group. So I wouldn’t expect you to think the Bible was inspired, whatever you might mean if you used those words. But if you came to believe in Jesus, on the basis of the NT as a historical text, the game changes. God exists after all, and he cared enough to send Jesus, and Jesus treated the Tanakh as his scriptures even if he didn’t treat them as inviolate. You might then decide to accept the Bible as inspired in some sense, as God-breathed (whatever you might think that would mean), etc.
“Accept? Perhaps you meant consider. I don’t think any of us should automatically accept what a scholar says. They might be experts, but they also have motives and bias. I think we should pay attention to the evidence that they uncover, but give careful and skeptical consideration to their conclusions.”
Yeah, that is fair comment. I certainly don’t accept what every expert says, though I am willing to consider it, because obviously they do differ on many things. But where the experts are largely in agreement, I see little alternative than to then accept what they say, – if the consensus is across viewpoints, then bias is largely eliminated.
And that is the case with the NT. There are many things which almost all scholars accept, and they are the things I quote – and I usually quote non-believing scholars to demonstrate that. But I don’t suggest people necessarily accept things that the scholars are in significant disagreement about. So your comment is a fair clarification.
“I also think that you would be hard pressed to find another instance in your life where you have based your life decisions on something with equivalent evidence. I don’t think you would propose to your wife if you had never met her and only heard non-eyewitness testimony about her.”
I think this is a most interesting question. Obviously you are right in the statement about proposing marriage, but I don’t think you are right in the conclusion you draw.
Firstly, I was using this analogy to address the question of evidence vs uncertainty and faith. I feel comfortable with the analogy on that level. And just because an analogy works on one level doesn’t mean it has to apply on other levels as well. It is only an analogy.
Secondly, it isn’t a matter of how much evidence in an absolute sense. As long as the evidence we have makes it more likely to be true than any other option, then that surely is enough? Who would choose a less likely option?
So what is an appropriate level of evidence in the case of Jesus?
There are some things that you have to make your mind up and then stick with it, while there are other things that you can give it a try and see what you think. Traditional marriage for life is theoretically in the first category (though these days it has become somewhat less so), so you have to be very sure before you jump in. Bungee jumping is a bit similar – it is too late when you’re halfway down deciding you’re not sure.
On the other hand, finding you way through a forest is an exercise that allows you to adjust course as you go, and if you get your initial path wrong, it isn’t too late to change. Working at a career is a bit the same. Doing science is likewise – you don’t have to prove it from an armchair before you start, you move forward by making hypotheses, proving them wrong or verifying them, making a new hypothesis, etc.
So where does christianity fit? Obviously if it is true then it is important, but how much do we need to know before we start? I suggest it is somewhere in the middle. You wouldn’t want to commit to following Jesus without having good evidence, but it isn’t something you can’t pull out of if you decide it’s not right after all – as many of you guys know.
So I think there is enough evidence to say that christianity is more likely to be true than not true. In that case, and granted one can pull out at any time, I can’t see why anyone would think they needed more evidence – it just being more probable is enough. Now again, you don’t think that is the case at present so you can’t make the same choice that I have. But I can only say again that I don’t think it’s the need for more evidence, its the balance of the evidence for and against (as you see it) that is stopping you.
LikeLike
Unklee, I am curious.
Do you believe in Jesus for any other reason other than because his story is in the bible?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes.
LikeLike
I came across this marvelous paper concerning Christians and the Historical-Critical method.
http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/ntintro/lifej/histcrit.htm
It details clearly why unklee’s ( and any other christian) methodology and supposed reliance on supposed experts is flawed to the core.
Here’s a snippet ….
Definitely worth a read.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What reasons could this be? And please I hate the scholars line! If that is all you got, just don’t answer.
LikeLike
That’s not all I’ve got, but I think I won’t answer anyway thanks. I have retired from this thread, remember, except for my discussion with Dave. But thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Aha, I didn’t realise you had hanged your boots, metaphorically speaking, on this thread.
LikeLiked by 1 person