|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 7, 2010 13:58:04 GMT
Contradicting myself, I suppose the obvious rejoinder to atheists being cleverer than us is how many of them believe the Jesus myth. That isn't clever. I personally don't know any atheist who believes in the Christ myth, but the internet certainly does stir up the dregs. Historians agree, with the same level of confidence as other ancient historical figures, that there was an actual Jesus. I was once a theist, so was I more clever then or am I more clever now? I certainly know of theists who could not survive as atheists. I know you've met some of them also. They are the ones who cannot regulate their lives without some external force or influence. I do quite well as an atheist or possibly an agnostic, but I would prefer to be a theist, providing my belief was based upon something real, rather than ancient writings of superstitious people who had very little knowledge of much of anything - much less a deity.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 8, 2010 1:57:05 GMT
I was once a theist .... I would prefer to be a theist, providing my belief was based upon something real, rather than ancient writings of superstitious people who had very little knowledge of much of anything - much less a deity. I am interested, if you don't mind answering some questions?? What sort of theist were you once? Did you drift away or leave for particular reasons? When you say ancient writings, are you referring to the Old Testament, or the New? Do you consider that the historical Jesus "had very little knowledge of much of anything - much less a deity"? Not trying to trap you or attack you, just interested. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 8, 2010 19:19:51 GMT
I am interested, if you don't mind answering some questions?? What sort of theist were you once? I became a Jehovah's Witness in my late twenties and remained in the cult for 30 years. Did you drift away or leave for particular reasons? I stopped attending for periods of time but my belief in God never wavered during those times. My difficulty with that religion was their many rules that didn't make any sense, and the constant proselytizing. It was how I was treated while going through a divorce that caused me to leave. When I resigned, I was single and retired and had plenty of time to learn more about Jesus. What I found, to my surprise, is that religion is based upon myth and superstition. At this point in time, I find no evidence of a god. When you say ancient writings, are you referring to the Old Testament, or the New? Do you consider that the historical Jesus "had very little knowledge of much of anything - much less a deity"? Yes, I was referring to all of the Bible, although it's more than obvious that the NT god has had a personality adjustment. I don't see how Jesus had any more knowledge of God than any other Jew at the time. We know that some things written about him are not true, so how do we know what is and what is not true? As one example, archeologists say there was no one living at Bethleham during the time Jesus was born. Today I just came across something about Thomas L. Thompson. Are you familar with him?
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 8, 2010 23:41:35 GMT
Thanks for those answers, they help me understand better where you are coming from. I don't wish to minimise or explain away your own experience, but I have noticed that many (most?) former believers I have come across were of the more fundamentalist kind before they changed their minds. And I note that NT scholar Craig Evans makes a similar observation about formerly-believing scholars.
Well that of course is an opinion. My belief is based primarily on the historical Jesus, though I presume you would regard the "extra-historical" stuff as superstition.
I think this is a good balanced statement which I can respect even while concluding differently.
Unless, of course, he was the Messiah as he appears to have claimed, and was resurrected as reported.
Yes, of course a believer may be troubled by this. But (1) historians and archaeologists have often made claims of missing evidence only to find the evidence later (e.g. recent work has vindicated many aspects of John's Gospel, whose historicity was once dismissed), and (2) the historians, generally, don't seem to allow some minor discrepancies to change their view that much useful historical information about Jesus is found in the gospels. That is how I think we can have some confidence we "know what is and what is not true".
Never heard of him, but I looked him up. He is mostly OT, and not (as far as I could see) of much relevance to Jesus. As a christian and not a Jew, I can sit loosely on the OT and not worry too much about details.
Thanks again for letting me know your views on these things. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Aug 9, 2010 6:47:42 GMT
Today I just came across something about Thomas L. Thompson. Are you familar with him? Yes, I know of him. He is an OT minimalist who annoys biblical archaeologists like William Dever for taking an overly sceptical view of the OT historical books. I found this very interesting on the issues a while back: www.bsw.org/?l=71831&a=Comm01.htmlI also wrote a little myself on the this issue as well (read the posts in reverse order). bedejournal.blogspot.com/search?q=LemcheI hope this helps. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by courtney on Aug 10, 2010 1:21:23 GMT
Quote: We know that some things written about him are not true, so how do we know what is and what is not true? As one example, archeologists say there was no one living at Bethlehem during the time Jesus was born.Yes, of course a believer may be troubled by this. But (1) historians and archaeologists have often made claims of missing evidence only to find the evidence later (e.g. recent work has vindicated many aspects of John's Gospel, whose historicity was once dismissed), and (2) the historians, generally, don't seem to allow some minor discrepancies to change their view that much useful historical information about Jesus is found in the gospels. That is how I think we can have some confidence we "know what is and what is not true". Further to what you say, this is a bit like the old Nazareth didn't exist story which has been pretty much laid to rest now. But in fact, regarding Bethlehem, the archeologists who have been saying this haven't by and large been saying that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, just that he was born in another town called Bethlehem that is found in Galilee rather than the traditional Judean town we associate with the nativity. Of course this would have some significance to Christians because (a) it is the Judean Bethlehem that is referred to by the prophet Micah in the quotation found in Matthew Ch.2 and (b) it is only this town that links Jesus to the Davidian line as mentioned by Luke Ch.2. However, as you rightly state, the degree of significance is arguable. Regarding significance (a) the prophecy of Micah is quoted as an interpretation made by the Herod's high priests to help locate the birthplace in response to the Magi. While it was surely included to help convince Matthew's audience of divine action, it does not stand as a prophecy upon which Matthew is staking any strong claim. Regarding significance (b): The linking of Jesus to David is not actually something that particularly strengthens Luke's case. Firstly, his audience was not as Jewish as was Matthews so David has less relevance to Greeks etc. Secondly, a David style "warrior king" messiah was not the only type of messiah that might have been credible. In fact it was a type probably least in tune with the Jesus that Luke went on to describe. So in many ways, if Jesus had been born in the Bethlehem of Galilee it would have made the gospel nativity narratives more plausible. Which is why the archeologists argue it, especially in the light of clear evidence of early Christianity practiced at the Galilean site. So why did both Matthew and Luke say it was in Judea? Probably because thats where He was born. Their nativity stories correlate despite coming from different sources which lends credibility. But it is true that there has been little archaeological evidence of habitation in Bethlehem at the start of the first century. But this is an argument from silence which has in itself been weakened by finds last year of burial catacombs close to the university of Bethlehem that may date back to 1st century. www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=210107We then actually have to address what the status of Bethlehem as a settlement was likely to have consisted of? The old testament says it was resettled following the Babylonian exile approx 500BC but the only record we have of the town at the time of Jesus birth are the gospels which make it quite clear that it was fairly insignificant. So why would we expect to find much there archaeologically? In many ways the paucity of finds is in tune with what we might expect. But what about any further evidence for Bethlehem? Well, we have the following text from the “Midrash Rabbah” for the book of "Lamentations" (1, 45) speaking of the extermination of the Jewish population in the Bethlehem area after the suppression of the Bar-Kochba revolt (132-136AD) "Hadrian the accursed set up three garrisons, one in Hamta, a second in Kefar Lekatia, and the third in Bethlehem of Judea. He said, 'Whoever attempts to escape from one of them will be captured in another and vice versa'..."So we have independent Jewish reference to the town around this tumultuous period and we know Jewish settlements in the area were destroyed with Roman efficiency as they put down the rebellion in their own typical style. Yet another reason we might not expect to find much now. Of course, this doesn't prove that Bethlehem existed around 5BC-5AD , but I assume we are applying normal rules of historical investigation for the classical period here? What else do we have? Well, we have the Church of the Nativity itself. You could argue that the Church was built on the site merely on the basis of the testimony of the gospels (which as I hope I've shown, isn't that bad a reason in itself). But in fact it was actually built on local tradition that Jesus was born in a cave there ( yes, and this may predate the new testament because Christian belief also did I'm afraid to report). We can suspect this from the writing of local man, Justin Martyr (100–165 A.D.). Origen also speaks of the tradition and may also have visited the site. This is prior to construction of the Church. Sorry if I have bored you with this. I'm a lurker who likes to check this site (I have left a couple of comments on the blog though) and I have visited Bethlehem and recommend anyone who gets the chance to do so as well, especially if you are interested in history or religion. On a side note, Bethlehem is the only place I've met someone who speaks Esperanto. I had tea with an elderly Christian Arab gentlemen known to my Muslim host. I was the first European he had spoken to in years - and I cant speak Esperanto! He saw Esperanto as a way of uniting peoples so I must have been quite a disappointment. Still fascinating man. Remembered the mandate. Sorry to report that his great grandchildren had never been to the sea because of their status in the occupied territory. Check out how close Bethlehem is to the sea. Rather sad. As was the sight of rubbish all over the streets due to the local politics and the military post right opposite the door of the Church of the Nativity. This was back in 1994 when I was still youngish...things dont change much over the years even if we all get old.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Aug 10, 2010 2:56:51 GMT
Bored? I am absolutely enthralled! That was fascinating (both your insights and the wonderful story you gave at the end).
Thank you for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 10, 2010 8:38:00 GMT
Bored? I am absolutely enthralled! That was fascinating (both your insights and the wonderful story you gave at the end). Thank you for sharing! I agree. Please keep posting when the mood is on you!
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 10, 2010 18:48:22 GMT
I don't wish to minimise or explain away your own experience, but I have noticed that many (most?) former believers I have come across were of the more fundamentalist kind before they changed their minds. And I note that NT scholar Craig Evans makes a similar observation about formerly-believing scholars. That's probably because they're as forceful declaring there is no God as they were declaring there is a God. We tend to remember those who are most vocal. Yes, of course a believer may be troubled by this. But (1) historians and archaeologists have often made claims of missing evidence only to find the evidence later (e.g. recent work has vindicated many aspects of John's Gospel, whose historicity was once dismissed), and (2) the historians, generally, don't seem to allow some minor discrepancies to change their view that much useful historical information about Jesus is found in the gospels. That is how I think we can have some confidence we "know what is and what is not true". It doesn't give me confidence to read books with hundreds and hundreds of errors, incorrect facts, and downright fiction. I'm not saying the Bible is not without value, but not more or less than many other stories.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 10, 2010 19:01:22 GMT
Yes, I know of him. He is an OT minimalist who annoys biblical archaeologists like William Dever for taking an overly sceptical view of the OT historical books. From what I gather he believes the entire Bible is allegorical - that nothing was ever written to be factual. I think he believes the persons written in the Bible, including Jesus, is fiction. The stories are not to be taken literally, but written to get some point across to the reader.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 10, 2010 21:18:35 GMT
It doesn't give me confidence to read books with hundreds and hundreds of errors, incorrect facts, and downright fiction. I'm not saying the Bible is not without value, but not more or less than many other stories. Your comment appears to treat the Bible as a single book, when in reality it is 66 of them - some would say even more. And of course it ignores the progression in teachings, historicity, purpose, genre and importance from Genesis to NT. As a christian, the important thing for me is the NT, and I'm certainly not aware of "hundreds and hundreds of errors, incorrect facts, and downright fiction". What in the gospels comes into those categories in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 11, 2010 17:44:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Aug 12, 2010 3:14:35 GMT
Excellent. And what do you make of educated christian responses to claims of contradiction like those? You do realise that, having read the Bible quite a lot, Christian scholars have been aware of these issues for hundreds of years, don't you? I take it you have investigated and critiqued common solutions to these 'contradictions', yes?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 12, 2010 8:06:18 GMT
I don't wish to minimise or explain away your own experience, but I have noticed that many (most?) former believers I have come across were of the more fundamentalist kind before they changed their minds. And I note that NT scholar Craig Evans makes a similar observation about formerly-believing scholars. I can introduce you to quite few thousand former Catholics who are now all atheists of various stripes and who would be sufficient to trash that theory. The type of non-believer who feels the need to evangelise non-belief, on the other hand, quite often does tend to come from a form of belief that is big on ramming ideas down others throats preaching the "truth" to those who aren't terribly interested. I suspect that's all you're detecting. For every one of them there are hundreds or even thousands like me who don't care what gods or "God" you believe in, so long as you don't bother me with it. We tend to stand out very much. I've noticed a similar thing with Jesus Mythers - the numbers of them who are former fundies who were at one stage training to be ministers/preachers etc is quite remarkable. It's called "going from one extreme to another".
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Aug 12, 2010 9:12:19 GMT
The type of non-believer who feels the need to evangelise non-belief, on the other hand, quite often does tend to come from a form of belief that is big on ramming ideas down others throats preaching the "truth" to those who aren't terribly interested. I suspect that's all you're detecting. I suspect this was Unklee's point. Fundamentalists do tend to be more enthusiatic evangelists that liberals. Indeed.
|
|