eight bits Posted January 10, 2021 #351 Share Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, third_eye said: If you can find the DvD or Blu-ray versions I highly recommend them.. https://youtu.be/0dQjSvUYzpI (Apparently YouTube has the full film of Barefoot in Athens, the clip is from a TV version, and apparently this computer, not my ususal, is embed-hostile, so you know what to do ) @Mr Walker Quote or that Christianity was based upon his teachings I don't know what he taught, if he did. What I observe is that Christianity attributes many of its teachings to him. Quote Its not like maths and science. No, it isn't, but it is a lot more like science for other questions. I wonder why this question would be different... Quote But, for example, there is more evidence for Christ's existence than for many accepted historical figures. You've put in enough hedges that I won't sass you for it, but that's still not much evidence. What acceptance there is, IMO, is that there is a first-principles (= not evidence, just "what sounds legit") reasonableness to the idea of a charismatic teacher not founding a religion himself but having survivors who do so in his memory (Swedenborg would be a modern example). There's not much evidence, however, that that's what actually happened. Mohammed did pretty well by proclaiming a celestial source for his teachings (Gabriel) as did Joseph Smith (Moroni) ... and nobody questions that at the time Paul wrote, the source of his teachings was a celestial being, too. Quote Often the challenge to his existence is based upon the religious //supernatural attachments given to the man That argument cuts both ways. Guild fantasy is that almost all the hard questons come from atheists. Speaking of things the guild believes on paltry evidence. But if their argument is granted, then it generalizes: ? People in general have a difficult time separating reasoning about secular questions from their religious and supernatural opinions. The prohibitive majority of the guild professes to follow a historical Jesus for religious or supernatural reasons. Why would I think they would be more succcessful than atheists in thinking clearly and critically about secular facts? Perhaps better all around to concentrate on the arguments rather than the people who offer the arguments, Edited January 10, 2021 by eight bits 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted January 10, 2021 #352 Share Posted January 10, 2021 27 minutes ago, eight bits said: (Apparently YouTube has the full film of Barefoot in Athens, the clip is from a TV version... Yeah, I saw that, the quality is atrocious if not abominable ... So too the full movie version... The Peter Ustinov renditions was more like the Sir Ian reads Shakespeare on stage... Quote [00.30:50] ~ 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 10, 2021 #353 Share Posted January 10, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, eight bits said: https://youtu.be/0dQjSvUYzpI (Apparently YouTube has the full film of Barefoot in Athens, the clip is from a TV version, and apparently this computer, not my ususal, is embed-hostile, so you know what to do ) @Mr Walker I don't know what he taught, if he did. What I observe is that Christianity attributes many of its teachings to him. No, it isn't, but it is a lot more like science for other questions. I wonder why this question would be different... You've put in enough hedges that I won't sass you for it, but that's still not much evidence. What acceptance there is, IMO, is that there is a first-principles (= not evidence, just "what sounds legit") reasonableness to the idea of a charismatic teacher not founding a religion himself but having survivors who do so in his memory (Swedenborg would be a modern example). There's not much evidence, however, that that's what actually happened. Mohammed did pretty well by proclaiming a celestial source for his teachings (Gabriel) as did Joseph Smith (Moroni) ... and nobody questions that at the time Paul wrote, the source of his teachings was a celestial being, too. That argument cuts both ways. Guild fantasy is that almost all the hard questons come from atheists. Speaking of things the guild believes on paltry evidence. But if their argument is granted, then it generalizes: ? People in general have a difficult time separating reasoning about secular questions from their religious and supernatural opinions. The prohibitive majority of the guild professes to follow a historical Jesus for religious or supernatural reasons. Why would I think they would be more succcessful than atheists in thinking clearly and critically about secular facts? Perhaps better all around to concentrate on the arguments rather than the people who offer the arguments, You and i look at the question differently To me historians use the SAME principles, evidentiary requirements etc. for the historicity of christ as for any other figure For his historical existence ,no more, nor no less, is required To them then there is an historical certainty of his existence which is as high, or higher, than for many ot the accepted historical figures You seem to believe they cut him some slack. Yet atheists and academics of other religions almost all agree on his historical reality based on standard evidentiary requirements Paul believed his guide was NOW a celestial being so did those who followed on (it added power, gravitas and authority to Paul and following leaders authority to have all believe this )(some Gnostics may have disagreed) However the narrative is contextual This celestial being had come from heaven, spent a life on earth then returned to earth Personally, while i don't believe this i think it more likely tha t Jesus existed and began a small but committed following but that Paul never had a genuine conversion, just used the The life and teachings of Christ and the legend growing around his rebirth, to gain power and authority I tend to disagree but dont have the statistics that historians accept Christ's historicity from religious or supernatural reasons It is such an historical force in human history that it is one of the most studied events /periods in history Thus historians of all types go into it. The y dont all study ir because of some prior belief While many historians of the era may be Christian, my own experience is tha t most are not Overall Historians (as academics with a greater education) are less religious than the general population, but more so than, say, Physicists. Here is an interesting debate on this issue quote According to the American Historical Association survey, just 7.7 percent of historians expressed an interest in religion. In other disciplines, the proportion is even smaller. If there is a comeback of religion (and I believe there is), it is limited in its size and scope. https://tif.ssrc.org/2009/12/30/religion-and-the-historical-profession/ Here is the summation of one atheist historian quot Scholars who specialize in the origins of Christianity agree on very little, but they do generally agree that it is most likely that a historical preacher, on whom the Christian figure "Jesus Christ" is based, did exist. The numbers of professional scholars, out of the many thousands in this and related fields, who don't accept this consensus, can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Many may be more cautious about using the term "historical fact" about this idea, since as with many things in ancient history it is not quite as certain as that. But it is generally regarded as the best and most parsimonious explanation of the evidence and therefore the most likely conclusion that can be drawn. The opposite idea—that there was no historical Jesus at all and that "Jesus Christ" developed out of some purely mythic ideas about a non-historical, non-existent figure—has had a checkered history over the last 200 years, but has usually been a marginal idea at best. Its heyday was in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, when it seemed to fit with some early anthropological ideas about religions evolving along parallel patterns and being based on shared archetypes, as characterized by Sir James Frazer's influential comparative religion study The Golden Bough (1890). But it fell out of favor as the twentieth century progressed and was barely held by any scholars at all by the 1960s. More recently the "Jesus Myth" hypothesis has experienced something of a revival, largely via the internet, blogging, and "print on demand" self-publishing services. But its proponents are almost never scholars, many of them have a very poor grasp of the evidence, and almost all have clear ideological objectives. Broadly speaking, they fall into two main categories: (1) New Agers claiming Christianity is actually paganism rebadged and (2) anti-Christian atheist activists seeking to use their "exposure" of historical Jesus scholarship to undermine Christianity. Both claim that the consensus on the existence of a historical Jesus is purely due to some kind of iron-grip that Christianity still has on the subject, which has suppressed and/or ignored the idea that there was no historical Jesus at all. In fact, there are some very good reasons there is a broad scholarly consensus on the matter and that it is held by scholars across a wide range of beliefs and backgrounds, including those who are atheists and agnostics (e.g. Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey, Paula Fredriksen) and Jews (e.g. Geza Vermes, Hyam Maccoby) https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/ About Tim O'Neill Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum. Edited January 10, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlookerofmayhem Posted January 11, 2021 #354 Share Posted January 11, 2021 @Mr Walker and anyone else who thinks Jesus definitely existed. Please provide a checklist of facts about him. E.g. - 1. Jesus was god incarnate. 2. Jesus's parents were named Mary and Joseph. 3. Jesus rose from the dead. Etc. I think one of the problems is every individual, scholar or layperson, accepts or denies certain aspects of the character. I'm not a proponent of Jesus being completely mythological. It's not hard to imagine a charismatic preacher that inspired a mythology that was built soon after his death. But when stripped down, what aspects can be ascertained to be certain or probable? Jesus was born. Jesus preached. Jesus was crucified. Ok. No real problems there for me. Whether the biblical details of each of those proposals are accurate is a debatable endeavor. Most of my problems go along with the claims of divinity and miracles. To me, those aspects are all complete fabrications. By whom and for what reasons we may never know, but I liken it to similar god/superhero tales. What better idol than someone greater than any human could ever possibly be? So if all of those details are made up or exaggerated then how far can one go, pretty much only on the gospels, to pick and choose which other details are facts about this character? Was the story of his birth accurate? Why the immense gap in his storyline? 18 years!? Talk about a gross lack of character development. Etc. There are many aspects that may have happened, but I see no reason to take the gospel accounts on their word alone. So if one is to whittle away all the improbable details surrounding the Legend of Jesus, how and when can one confidently say the biblical Jesus was or wasn't, without a doubt, a real person? Which version of the character are we actually discussing? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 11, 2021 #355 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said: @Mr Walker and anyone else who thinks Jesus definitely existed. Please provide a checklist of facts about him. E.g. - 1. Jesus was god incarnate. 2. Jesus's parents were named Mary and Joseph. 3. Jesus rose from the dead. Etc. I think one of the problems is every individual, scholar or layperson, accepts or denies certain aspects of the character. I'm not a proponent of Jesus being completely mythological. It's not hard to imagine a charismatic preacher that inspired a mythology that was built soon after his death. But when stripped down, what aspects can be ascertained to be certain or probable? Jesus was born. Jesus preached. Jesus was crucified. Ok. No real problems there for me. Whether the biblical details of each of those proposals are accurate is a debatable endeavor. Most of my problems go along with the claims of divinity and miracles. To me, those aspects are all complete fabrications. By whom and for what reasons we may never know, but I liken it to similar god/superhero tales. What better idol than someone greater than any human could ever possibly be? So if all of those details are made up or exaggerated then how far can one go, pretty much only on the gospels, to pick and choose which other details are facts about this character? Was the story of his birth accurate? Why the immense gap in his storyline? 18 years!? Talk about a gross lack of character development. Etc. There are many aspects that may have happened, but I see no reason to take the gospel accounts on their word alone. So if one is to whittle away all the improbable details surrounding the Legend of Jesus, how and when can one confidently say the biblical Jesus was or wasn't, without a doubt, a real person? Which version of the character are we actually discussing? You are conflating two separate issues in your first 3 questions. One covers historical questions. Did a man called Jesus exist? Was he a teacher/ preacher for the liberal school of Judaism ? Did he attract a small, but committed, group of followers ? Were his teachings the origins of Christianity? Was he executed at the behest of the ruling conservative school of Judaism by the Romans? Mainstream academic opinion is almost universally "yes" to those questions. The second covers the nature of the man Was he the son of god ? Did he perform miracles? Did he rise from the dead etc ? Those are NOT questions for historians, but questions of belief /faith So we have no real argument You choose not to believe I still have an open mind. You dont believe real powerful miracles (or examples of advanced technogly ) ever occur. I know the y do Still i dont know that Christ had access to this power or technogly, and i suspend belief/disbelief on that. I just know its possible because the power/technology exists, and is being used on people today (and is probably not more than a century more advanced than current human technology ) So to summarise; i have absolutely no doubt that the historical Jesus existed, but make no judgement about the one described in the bible That is not a question which can be answered with current knowledge, and has to be accepted or denied by faith Edited January 11, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Walker Posted January 11, 2021 #356 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: quoted instead of edited Edited January 11, 2021 by Mr Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 11, 2021 #357 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: For his historical existence ,no more, nor no less, is required To them then there is an historical certainty of his existence which is as high, or higher, than for many ot the accepted historical figures You seem to believe they cut him some slack. Every argument has premises, and within the argument, the premises are taken as true. So, there's no real objection to a historian writing a book about, say, "Jesus's attitude toward Roman authority and its Jewish client rulers" and to premise the book on the assumption that Jesus was a real man who actually lived. Also with the further premise that we could have the faintest idea what that real man's attitudes actually were, given the nature of our sources. And the book might even be read profitably by a Jesus skeptic, because that system of premises is isomorphic (= different way of saying something, but with all the same or parallel consequences as the original) to "What is the storybook character Jesus's attitude toward <whatever> in the canonical story universe?" It'd be the same book. (There's no reason - none - why a premise cannot be flatly contrary to fact, so long as it is consistent ... this convenient opportunity is what pays J.K. Rowling's bills - and IMO the guild's bills as well.) Outside the academy, however, we get to ask simple questions, and expect to get answers to the questions we ask based on the balance of evidence and inherent plausibility. Not what can be made to work as the premise of an academic book. Was or was not Jesus a real man who actually lived? The first thing to say about possible answers is that they are all going to be uncertain. Not only scrupulously uncertain, but inevitably less certain than I might be when answering the same question about Julius Caesar, never mind about Napoleon. Actually, if I could get widespread guild acceptance of those last two paragraphs, I'd be a happy camper. And so would the guild, becuse they could continue cranking out the same books they want to crank out. Meanwhile, the rest of us would have our answer, not the categorical yes of Caesar or Napoleon, but the appropriately hedged more-likely-than-not or thereabouts yes - provided much care is exercised in defining whom we're talking about. Change the definition slightly to become more specific (= more demanding) and the asnwer becomes no, but with the same hedge. 8 hours ago, Mr Walker said: About Tim O'Neill He's not a historian, except in the sense that you and I are: people who write about the human past on the internet. Well, he includes the word history in the title of his blog. That settles it, then, eh? Edited January 11, 2021 by eight bits 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 11, 2021 #358 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 hour ago, eight bits said: Every argument has premises, and within the argument, the premises are taken as true. So, there's no real objection to a historian writing a book about, say, "Jesus's attitude toward Roman authority and its Jewish client rulers" and to premise the book on the assumption that Jesus was a real man who actually lived. Also with the further premise that we could have the faintest idea what that real man's attitudes actually were, given the nature of our sources. And the book might even be read profitably by a Jesus skeptic, because that system of premises is isomorphic (= different way of saying something, but with all the same or parallel consequences as the original) to "What is the storybook character Jesus's attitude toward <whatever> in the canonical story universe?" It'd be the same book. (There's no reason - none - why a premise cannot be flatly contrary to fact, so long as it is consistent ... this convenient opportunity is what pays J.K. Rowling's bills - and IMO the guild's bills as well.) Outside the academy, however, we get to ask simple questions, and expect to get answers to the questions we ask based on the balance of evidence and inherent plausibility. Not what can be made to work as the premise of an academic book. Was or was not Jesus a real man who actually lived? The first thing to say about possible answers is that they are all going to be uncertain. Not only scrupulously uncertain, but inevitably less certain than I might be when answering the same question about Julius Caesar, never mind about Napoleon. Actually, if I could get widespread guild acceptance of those last two paragraphs, I'd be a happy camper. And so would the guild, becuse they could continue cranking out the same books they want to crank out. Meanwhile, the rest of us would have our answer, not the categorical yes of Caesar or Napoleon, but the appropriately hedged more-likely-than-not or thereabouts yes - provided much care is exercised in defining whom we're talking about. Change the definition slightly to become more specific (= more demanding) and the asnwer becomes no, but with the same hedge. He's not a historian, except in the sense that you and I are: people who write about the human past on the internet. Well, he includes the word history in the title of his blog. That settles it, then, eh? If there was no Jesus begs another question i.e. what was Christianity's point-of-origin--where did it begin? When was the incredibly lurid and alluring tale contained in the gospels first fabricated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 11, 2021 #359 Share Posted January 11, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: If there was no Jesus begs another question i.e. what was Christianity's point-of-origin--where did it begin? When was the incredibly lurid and alluring tale contained in the gospels first fabricated? My best guesses about what dominates my 40% (the weight I give to Jesus being a fictional or mythological character)? What you see is what you get. Paul, who was already schooled in the Jewish scripture, had a vision. He wasn't the first to have that vision. He had had strong emotional investment in the previous visionaries being wrong BUT as Uncle Carl would tell you, that made him a prime candidate to have the same vision they had had. It's entirely possible that the true source of his acknowledged intense disfavor for them was that he agreed with them about the corrupt Temple system more than he wanted to admit, maybe other issues as well. You or I might have to settle for a dream that our worst enemies are right, but Paul courted visionary mystical experiences, so he got the full magilla. Plus,Paul turned to the Jewish scriptures he knew so well. Waddya know - he found his visionary risen Jesus on page after page. As to the tale in the gospels, "lurid and alluring" isn't necessarily different from "professionally skilled storytelling." The earliest Gospel (we estimate) is Mark's. He'd read Paul's letters, and used them as "prompts" (not stories, Paul tells hardly any natural-life Jesus stories, but the situations about which a story can be told - a staple of writing classes and workshops). Mark also knew the Jewish Bible. Plus, he knew something about John the Baptist (maybe Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, too - scholars debate). Regardless of how Mark knew things besides what Paul suggested and the Jewish scriptures contained, Mark knew: - John the Baptist drew crowds as a preacher - A contemporary of John's, Pilate, killed a lot of people on crosses - John himself was killed by a more-or-less Jewish official Hmm ... Paul says his Jesus ended up on a cross - how 'bout a contemporary of John the Baptist draws crowds as a preacher, goes to Jerusalem and gets crucified by BOTH Jewish officials and Pilate. Now that's a story! I think that that's fair to what is a plausible "process" for Mark, but it omits what sets Mark apart. He was, in my opinion, a genius. The beauty, power and complexity of Mark is mind-boggling. Edited January 11, 2021 by eight bits 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Hammerclaw Posted January 11, 2021 #360 Share Posted January 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, eight bits said: My best guesses about what dominates my 40% (the weight I give to Jesus being a fictional or mythological character)? What you see is what you get. Paul, who was was already schooled in the Jewish scripture, had a vision. He wasn't the first to have that vision. He had had strong emotional investment in the previous visionaries being wrong BUT as Uncle Carl would tell you, that made him a prime candidate to have the same vision they had had. It's entirely possible that the true source of his acknowledged intense disfavor for them was that he agreed with them about the corrupt Temple system more than he wanted to admit, maybe other issues as well. You or I might have to settle for a dream that our worst enemies are right, but Paul courted visionary mystical experiences, so he got the full magilla. Plus,Paul turned to the Jewish scriptures he knew so well. Waddya know - he found his visionary risen Jesus on page after page. As to the tale in the gospels, "lurid and alluring" isn't necessarily different from "professionally skilled storytelling." The earliest Gospel (we estimate) is Mark's. He'd read Paul's letters, and used them as "prompts" (not stories, Paul tells hardly any natural-life Jesus stories, but the situations about which a story can be told - a staple of writing classes and workshops). Mark also knew the Jewish Bible. Plus, he knew something about John the Baptist (maybe Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, too - scholars debate). Regardless of how Mark knew things besides what Paul suggested and the Jewish scriptures contained, Mark knew: - John the Baptist drew crowds as a preacher - A contemporary of John's, Pilate, killed a lot of people on crosses - John himself was killed by a more-or-less Jewish official Hmm ... Paul says his Jesus ended up on a cross - how 'bout a contemporary of John the Baptist draws crowds as a preacher, goes to Jerusalem and gets crucified by BOTH Jewish officials and Pilate. Now that's a story! I think that that's fair to what is a plausible "process" for Mark, but it omits what sets Mark apart. He was, in my opinion, a genius. The beauty, power and complexity of Mark is mind-boggling. It's an intriguing house of cards, made up of question marks and people such as JB who aren't known to have really existed. Did it all start with Paul's vision, with gospel writers coming along later to fill in the those blanks in his writings you spoke of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 11, 2021 #361 Share Posted January 11, 2021 1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said: people such as JB who aren't known to have really existed. Well, Josephus says he existed. Strictly speaking, he's a "functional character" in Mark. As long as there were preachers who offered reconciliation with the Jewish God without Temple sacrifice, and some of them got killed for it, it doesn't really matter for Mark's use of the concept if there wasn't one specific "John the Baptizer," or that John was a myth. And um, as I keep saying, my position is that the uncertainty about Jesus should be acknowledged. Anybody who questions John (a flesh-and-blood character in all four Gospels plus Josephus) would seem to need some special pleading not to question Jesus's historicity, too. 9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: Did it all start with Paul's vision I take him at his word. Paul persecuted a risen-Jesus sect of Judaism which featured the shared vision of ... well, Paul never describes the vision itself. However, at some point he has a similar vision. If that's right, then it all started before Paul. 13 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said: with gospel writers coming along later to fill in the those blanks in his writings you spoke of? I think Mark acted independently in the literary sense. I don't know his motivation. The three other canonical evangelists are all dependent on Mark, two of them copying big chunks almost word-for-word. Those later gospels are far more apologetic, pro-Christian, than Mark is. Much of Mark can be accounted for as retellings of Jewish scriptural stories (sometimes quoting those scriptures in Greek), and some of it appears to be his own storyteller's creativity. Also, there's every reason to believe that "Jesus stories" circulated widely among Jewish and Christian social groups by the 60's and 70's. The issue is whether those stories would be "historical memories" or something else. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted January 11, 2021 #362 Share Posted January 11, 2021 On 1/8/2021 at 8:54 PM, Mr Walker said: One can't discount writings about Christ written 100 years after his death anymore than one can discount what 8 bits and i found out, and recorded, about our own families There's quite a bit of difference there obviously, you have evidence for your families that doesn't apply to Christ's situation, and 100 years after Christ died is more like hundreds of years passing now due to all the media we have available to record evidence. How about this scenario, something happens in the next 100 years and because of some massive ideological conflict between the US and Australia all posts from anyone from Australia including yours are totally removed from UM and the internet, there is no longer any direct evidence of them. However, all of the numerous posts here that disagree with the ideas and tales of Mr Walker remain, and 500 years from now that is all that historians have to work with. They then conclude that Mr Walker did exist as a person but that he was a fabulist, contradictory, and possibly just likes to say things that he doesn't believe to stir people up, as that is what a lot of these critical writings they have to work with say. Historians go through their methods and have skepticism about individual criticisms but find a lot of the same criticisms by multiple writers about MW, thus they conclude that what your critics think you are has veracity; 'why would all these different people write similar things about a Mr Walker/Jesus if there was no real fabulist/itinerant preacher at its core?'. I'm not having a go at you and am not renewing any of those criticisms, but just think of the conclusions that historians would come to about who you are if all they had was the mass of criticisms here of your points; they may indeed conclude you were a real person but you may entirely disagree with the conclusions they would come to as to who you really were, since all they have are what your critics said about you. You have countless posts that start with a variation of 'you misunderstand me' so you already believe that many of our writings here do not accurately describe you. Wouldn't you then agree that these writings should be discounted as well as the conclusions historians may come to from them? It would be a similar situation to Jesus: there is a lot of evidence missing and (from your perspective) the people writing about you/Jesus are biased, or at least with you are not accurately stating your positions. I mean big whoop, we can have some confidence you were both real humans, something more relevant to Jesus obviously, but historically that's pretty empty and does almost nothing to prove the existence of Jesus/MW and who they really were. (To be clear again this is an analogy, this has nothing to do with the actual situation with you being wrong or right about these criticisms, just that those criticisms exist. Nor should this be taken as an opportunity to talk about yourself and bring up off-topic stuff from the Walker canon - credit where credit is due, I think you for doing a pretty good job of staying on-topic on this thread. Refreshing.) 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nuclear Wessel Posted January 11, 2021 #363 Share Posted January 11, 2021 3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said: (To be clear again this is an analogy, this has nothing to do with the actual situation with you being wrong or right about these criticisms, just that those criticisms exist. Nor should this be taken as an opportunity to talk about yourself and bring up off-topic stuff from the Walker canon - credit where credit is due, I think you for doing a pretty good job of staying on-topic on this thread. Refreshing.) Oh, just wait for it. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros of Skaro Posted January 12, 2021 Author #364 Share Posted January 12, 2021 19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said: Did it all start with Paul's vision, with gospel writers coming along later to fill in the those blanks in his writings you spoke of? According to Paul it was Peter to first receive a vision of Jesus. Paul says he knows about Jesus through visions, and scripture just like the apostles before him. It's my opinion Mark started out as "Plato's Noble Lie". A myth is created to get the less philosophically inclined (common masses) to accept a truth. Jesus's death and resurrection is in the OT, but a story set on Earth is easier to grasp. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted January 12, 2021 #365 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said: There's quite a bit of difference there obviously, you have evidence for your families that doesn't apply to Christ's situation, and 100 years after Christ died is more like hundreds of years passing now due to all the media we have available to record evidence. How about this scenario, something happens in the next 100 years and because of some massive ideological conflict between the US and Australia all posts from anyone from Australia including yours are totally removed from UM and the internet, there is no longer any direct evidence of them. However, all of the numerous posts here that disagree with the ideas and tales of Mr Walker remain, and 500 years from now that is all that historians have to work with. They then conclude that Mr Walker did exist as a person but that he was a fabulist, contradictory, and possibly just likes to say things that he doesn't believe to stir people up, as that is what a lot of these critical writings they have to work with say. Historians go through their methods and have skepticism about individual criticisms but find a lot of the same criticisms by multiple writers about MW, thus they conclude that what your critics think you are has veracity; 'why would all these different people write similar things about a Mr Walker/Jesus if there was no real fabulist/itinerant preacher at its core?'. I'm not having a go at you and am not renewing any of those criticisms, but just think of the conclusions that historians would come to about who you are if all they had was the mass of criticisms here of your points; they may indeed conclude you were a real person but you may entirely disagree with the conclusions they would come to as to who you really were, since all they have are what your critics said about you. You have countless posts that start with a variation of 'you misunderstand me' so you already believe that many of our writings here do not accurately describe you. Wouldn't you then agree that these writings should be discounted as well as the conclusions historians may come to from them? It would be a similar situation to Jesus: there is a lot of evidence missing and (from your perspective) the people writing about you/Jesus are biased, or at least with you are not accurately stating your positions. I mean big whoop, we can have some confidence you were both real humans, something more relevant to Jesus obviously, but historically that's pretty empty and does almost nothing to prove the existence of Jesus/MW and who they really were. (To be clear again this is an analogy, this has nothing to do with the actual situation with you being wrong or right about these criticisms, just that those criticisms exist. Nor should this be taken as an opportunity to talk about yourself and bring up off-topic stuff from the Walker canon - credit where credit is due, I think you for doing a pretty good job of staying on-topic on this thread. Refreshing.) Kudos to you LG. That's one of the most fascinating posts I've ever read on these boards dealing with the topic of whether or not Jesus ever really existed. Quote It would be a similar situation to Jesus: there is a lot of evidence missing and (from your perspective) the people writing about you/Jesus are biased, or at least with you are not accurately stating your positions. Here's the difference regarding the evidence that's missing. If Jesus really is the Son of God, much more than merely a mortal man, the actual Creator of Heaven and earth, then He would have the power to set the record straight. Word for word. Accurate to the minute. Accurate in every detail. And provide it for everyone to know. But of course there's one little caveat to any of it having any meaning. One very necessary thing for it to have any value. One very critical tiny thing for any of it to really matter, and it's this: Have you or anyone developed the requisite interest in knowing what ought to be known about God and his Son enough to allow yourself to be put in the proper attitude of adjustment enough to enable you to see, what you wouldn't otherwise see about it, if you did? Edited January 12, 2021 by Will Do 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 12, 2021 #366 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Davros of Skaro said: It's my opinion Mark started out as "Plato's Noble Lie". A myth is created to get the less philosophically inclined (common masses) to accept a truth. Jesus's death and resurrection is in the OT, but a story set on Earth is easier to grasp. What I have a problem with in that is the assumption that "Mark" is a Christian at the time he's writing. The only evidence that I can see in favor of it is that his work found a Christian audience. I suspect so did some of the work of Josephus and Philo, in the sense of becoming incorporated into unmistakably Christian propaganda like the other three canonical gospels. Nobody thinks Josephus or Philo was a Christian ... and because (unlike "Mark") they didn't write anonymously, we pretty much know that they never were Christians. Anonymous Mark? Well, we don't know anything about him, therefore he must have been a Christian. Guild logic. So, if you ever get a chance (or if you ever launch that thread on Mark), what is it that tells you that Mark, the author(s), was a Christian? Back to the quote above, a story set on Earth is also easier to sit through - on the off chance that Mark's intended audience wasn't Christian either. ETA: @Will Do posed a question to LG, and I won't answer ahead of him, but Will made a statement which I didn't understand, and maybe he can clarify: Quote If Jesus really is the Son of God, much more than merely a mortal man, the actual Creator of Heaven and earth, then He would have the power to set the record straight. Word for word. Accurate to the minute. Accurate in every detail. And provide it for everyone to know. Ordinary mortal men and women have managed to leave a record or other tangible traces straight enough to inspire great confidence that they really lived. For example, Herodias, the second wife and former sister-in-law of Herod Antipas. About Herodias, I can say: (1) I fully believe she did not create the universe (2) I don't know one way or the other whether she had any role in the death of John the Baptist, but (3) I am far more confident that she was a real woman who actually lived than I am that Jesus was her flesh-and-blood contemporary. Edited January 12, 2021 by eight bits 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted January 12, 2021 #367 Share Posted January 12, 2021 26 minutes ago, eight bits said: Ordinary mortal men and women have managed to leave a record or other tangible traces straight enough to inspire great confidence that they really lived. I said: Quote If Jesus really is the Son of God, much more than merely a mortal man, the actual Creator of Heaven and earth, then He would have the power to set the record straight. Word for word. Accurate to the minute. Accurate in every detail. And provide it for everyone to know. If Jesus was more than an ordinary man or woman, the Son of God even, then he would indeed have the power to set the record straight. Would he not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 12, 2021 #368 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Will Do said: If Jesus was more than an ordinary man or woman, the Son of God even, then he would indeed have the power to set the record straight. Would he not? I don't have any expertise on Jesus's powerz, I'm happy to leave that to believers to sort out among themselves. But was your point simply that Jesus finally set the record straight by cooperating with the production of the Big Blue Book? It seems to me that if Jesus wanted to leave records or traces to establish even his bare existence, then he could have done so back in the day. Meanwhile Herodias didn't even try to do that specifically, so far as we can tell, and yet she succeeded anyway. I conclude that powerz really don't enter into the problem of the thread, which is whether or not Jesus was a real man who actually lived. Edited January 12, 2021 by eight bits 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted January 12, 2021 #369 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 47 minutes ago, eight bits said: But was your point simply that Jesus finally set the record straright by cooperating with the production of the Big Blue Book? Yes. The Urantia Book. From the standpoint of the usual way ordinary men and women deal with the matters of history, if Jesus of Nazareth really did exist and he really is the Son of God, shouldn't there be a record that's precise and accurate from God's standpoint? Isn't that the problem of this thread? Edited January 12, 2021 by Will Do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted January 12, 2021 #370 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Will Do said: Isn't that the problem of this thread? Whether he's the Son of God is not the problem of this thread. Regardless of whether or not he was, 1 hour ago, Will Do said: shouldn't there be a record that's precise and accurate from God's standpoint? Herodias managed to establish her existence, and I wouldn't characterize her records as "precise" from anybody's viewpoint. Good enough, though, at least to assert confidently that she existed, even if "what she's most remembered for," orchestrating the death of John the Baptist by pimping her daughter, may well be as fictitious as Jesus's promenade on the lake, And at the risk of answering a question with a question, if there "should be" such a record, then shouldn't it have been available before the 20th Century? I really don't want to derail the discussion to Jesus's divinity or what the UB says. If a flesh-and-blood Jesus had any ambition to be accurately recalled after his death, then it is reasonable to inquire why he failed to do as well as Herodias who harbored no such ambition and had no reputation for any special powerz at all. One serious possibiility: she had the advantage of being a real person who actually lived, while he was just a storybook character who went viral. Edited January 12, 2021 by eight bits 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted January 12, 2021 #371 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, eight bits said: If a flesh-and-blood Jesus had any ambition to be accurately recalled after his death, then it is reasonable to inquire why he failed to do as well as Herodias Well since "A day is as a thousand years with God" why wouldn't it be reasonable for the Creator Son to wait a couple of days to have the record published accurately of his life and teachings? As it's been restated: "Jesus was never in a hurry." Edited January 12, 2021 by Will Do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted January 12, 2021 #372 Share Posted January 12, 2021 4 hours ago, eight bits said: posed a question to LG, and I won't answer ahead of him, but Will made a statement which I didn't understand, and maybe he can clarify: Please feel free anytime to answer before me, I didn't understand the comment well either but you're kinda showing what I suspected, that it is some kind of lead-in to the UB. 4 hours ago, Will Do said: If Jesus really is the Son of God, much more than merely a mortal man, the actual Creator of Heaven and earth, then He would have the power to set the record straight. I'll go with 8's response on this, who knows what powers they have. In the Bible I believe there is reason to think that Jesus' powers are not self-contained within him but instead are from 'The Father', who he repeatedly invokes. Outside of Gethsemane I'm not aware where the Father ever turned down a request by Jesus for divine intervention so maybe we can consider the Son to be the one with the power, but the whole Trinity thing is such an illogical mess that your guess is as good as mine, and vice versa. 5 hours ago, Will Do said: Have you or anyone developed the requisite interest in knowing what ought to be known about God and his Son enough to allow yourself to be put in the proper attitude of adjustment enough to enable you to see, what you wouldn't otherwise see about it, if you did? That is not the clearest sentence, it seems to condense down to, 'have you done something enough to enable you to see that which you can only see if you've done this thing enough?'. In general you can take that question structure and say obviously 'yes' (I have learned to login to UM 'enough' to see things I can only see if I know how to login to UM), or you can take it as unanswerable (how can you know if there's something more to 'see' if the only way to see it is to do something enough, you are presuming that there actually is something more to see but ignoring that there are multiple possibilities: maybe you're right that there's more to see but I haven't done something enough, but it may instead be that there's nothing more to see). I'm going along with this in the idea that you are trying to link the question of a historical Jesus to something relevant that follows from his possibly being the Son of God, if it's some side tangent then probably should be split out on a separate thread. Sure, I'm fine with if Jesus was the Son of god that he has the power to make evidence of his historical existence known, but we already know that he did not 'provide it for everyone to know', if he's actually done anything on that front he's just as much provided evidence that everyone can 'doubt' as much as everyone can 'know'. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Due Posted January 12, 2021 #373 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said: Please feel free anytime to answer before me, I didn't understand the comment well either but you're kinda showing what I suspected, that it is some kind of lead-in to the UB. I'll go with 8's response on this, who knows what powers they have. In the Bible I believe there is reason to think that Jesus' powers are not self-contained within him but instead are from 'The Father', who he repeatedly invokes. Outside of Gethsemane I'm not aware where the Father ever turned down a request by Jesus for divine intervention so maybe we can consider the Son to be the one with the power, but the whole Trinity thing is such an illogical mess that your guess is as good as mine, and vice versa. That is not the clearest sentence, it seems to condense down to, 'have you done something enough to enable you to see that which you can only see if you've done this thing enough?'. In general you can take that question structure and say obviously 'yes' (I have learned to login to UM 'enough' to see things I can only see if I know how to login to UM), or you can take it as unanswerable (how can you know if there's something more to 'see' if the only way to see it is to do something enough, you are presuming that there actually is something more to see but ignoring that there are multiple possibilities: maybe you're right that there's more to see but I haven't done something enough, but it may instead be that there's nothing more to see). I'm going along with this in the idea that you are trying to link the question of a historical Jesus to something relevant that follows from his possibly being the Son of God, if it's some side tangent then probably should be split out on a separate thread. Sure, I'm fine with if Jesus was the Son of god that he has the power to make evidence of his historical existence known, but we already know that he did not 'provide it for everyone to know', if he's actually done anything on that front he's just as much provided evidence that everyone can 'doubt' as much as everyone can 'know'. Interesting statement. Of course it leads me to have to ask you, why do you think he did not 'provide it for everyone to know'? As far as I'm concerned, he most certainly has provided it for everyone to know. Or doubt, if that's the choice. Edited January 12, 2021 by Will Do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted January 12, 2021 #374 Share Posted January 12, 2021 57 minutes ago, Will Do said: Of course it leads me to have to ask you, why do you think he did not 'provide it for everyone to know'? Because what he has provided, if anything, has not resulted in the people who examined that 'what' knowing he exists. How many Christian denominations are we up to now, all from something 'precise and accurate'. I think you are drifting too far from the topic, which has to do with a historical Jesus. Jesus didn't provide anything so 'everyone would know' that he was a historical person, and if he was the Son of God as you say he was he also knew that fact. Everything we have about him is from other writers, none of whom even claim to have encountered a historical Jesus. I think you have an additional issue with overall consistency concerning things you attempt to impute onto Jesus as far as what we think he would have done (I'm not sure about the UB, but I'm pretty sure the Bible says things about making assumptions about what God would/should do. Romans 9:15 - "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and will have compassion on whom I have compassion" - the end.). For example, "why wouldn't it be reasonable for the Creator Son to wait a couple of days (thousand years) to have the record published accurately of his life and teachings?". Why don't you ask, 'why would Jesus wait 2000 years to have the accurate record published/revealed?'. That's a lot of lifetimes, and certainly can be seen as an unreasonable delay. I mean you also just said, "From the standpoint of the usual way ordinary men and women deal with the matters of history, if Jesus of Nazareth really did exist and he really is the Son of God, shouldn't there be a record that's precise and accurate from God's standpoint?". If we really want to discuss how the theological notions intersect with the historical ones, why should there be a 'record' at all, if the record was actually excellent then who needs faith? What good is providing a precise record when he knows it won't convince most people? From the usual historical method, Jesus did not leave any record that's precise and accurate concerning his historical existence, Jesus didn't write any part of the Bible and there are too many contradictions in it for me to even consider it 'precise and accurate' about his teachings let alone the events of his supposed life. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Sherapy Posted January 12, 2021 #375 Share Posted January 12, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Will Do said: Interesting statement. Of course it leads me to have to ask you, why do you think he did not 'provide it for everyone to know'? As far as I'm concerned, he most certainly has provided it for everyone to know. Or doubt, if that's the choice. Will there is a huge distinction between know and knowledge. “To know”has a large subjective component to it, where as knowledge is fact based. With this in mind what did Jesus leave in the way of knowledge? Edited January 12, 2021 by Sherapy 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now