THE most trusted news source IN america part TWO - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2013, 01:20 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 06:16 PM
A thoughtful critique:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-c...b_3679466.html
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 02:09 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Am I the only one who thinks anything more than a dozen or so pages on 'historical' Jesus is mostly conjecture and a waste of time? How much information really exists about the man? (actual information. The bible doesn't count)
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 06:50 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 04:16 AM
what do you want, a fucking passport? Ancient sources include the whole kit and kaboodle. I would imagine scholars do the best they can.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 12:09 PM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
I would imagine scholars do the best they can.

Yep, which is why there is never really a consensus.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 01:01 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
what do you want, a fucking passport? Ancient sources include the whole kit and kaboodle. I would imagine scholars do the best they can.
What does this even mean?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 02:32 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Am I the only one who thinks anything more than a dozen or so pages on 'historical' Jesus is mostly conjecture and a waste of time? How much information really exists about the man? (actual information. The bible doesn't count)
Agree with the Biblical record or not, most historians -- even liberal ones like the Jesus Seminar, who embrace gnostic gospels as well -- look to the Scriptures as valuable sources of history regarding this man whose life and ministry had more than a little impact on history, particularly given the historical veracity of the documents, many of which date to within decades of Jesus' life and ministry, as well as their correspondence to historical locations and events.

If you're genuinely curious about the historicity of the texts, there are a number of archaeologists, scholars and historians who have done fascinating work in this area. As I'm currently working on a documentary that's dealing in exactly this subject matter, I'd be happy to send you some authors who've written extensively on this that may be of interest...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 05:42 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

If you're genuinely curious about the historicity of the texts, there are a number of archaeologists, scholars and historians who have done fascinating work in this area. As I'm currently working on a documentary that's dealing in exactly this subject matter, I'd be happy to send you some authors who've written extensively on this that may be of interest...
I'm fascinated with religious history, so send away Thanks!

But how do you take a document on its word when it includes supernatural claims? What document of Jesus' life exists from his time?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 08:19 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
What does this even mean?
It means that the gospels are information. Not to be taken uncritically, and to be cross referenced with political records, such as they survive, but information nonetheless.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 08:29 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
It means that the gospels are information. Not to be taken uncritically, and to be cross referenced with political records, such as they survive, but information nonetheless.
sketchy information at best. What are they cross referencing with respect to historical jesus? What is there to cross reference? If I'm going to make up stories about a person from 80 years ago, I'm not going to make up fictional cities to place him in. The historical accuracy of the locations says nothing about the accuracy of the descriptions of the person
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 01:22 AM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
If I'm going to make up stories about a person from 80 years ago, I'm not going to make up fictional cities to place him in.
Paul's letters are often dated only 20-50 years after Jesus' death.

Also - the oral tradition was still very strong in Israel (most rabbi's had the entire Torah memorized, which is FAR larger than of the gospels). This oral tradition was considered extremely accurate (more accurate than scribes) because the community of listeners would correct mistakes. The "game of telephone" analogy does not work when dozens of listeners and master teachers are around to correct even the slightest error in the story.

Paul's letters make several references to a gospel (which may have still been oral at this point) in his letters.

Of course, this does not prove they didn't make everything up - but there is quite a bit of evidence that "Christianity" (the most important bit is the fact that it even exists as a religion at all) started just after Jesus' death, with or without a formal gospel.

All that being said - the gospels are really the only picture of Jesus we have. You can agree it's a false image, but I think you can only do so based on faith/non-faith. There is nothing immediately outside of the gospels that directly discredits or proves their portrayal of Jesus. That is why the vast majority of the scholarship out there deals with what is written in the text.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 02:48 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Paul's letters are often dated only 20-50 years after Jesus' death.
Try to tell a coherent (and factual) story about something that happened 5 years ago, never mind 50. Our memories are tragically flawed. 20 - 50 years is a long time for a story to trans-mutate

Quote:
Also - the oral tradition was still very strong in Israel (most rabbi's had the entire Torah memorized, which is FAR larger than of the gospels). This oral tradition was considered extremely accurate (more accurate than scribes) because the community of listeners would correct mistakes. The "game of telephone" analogy does not work when dozens of listeners and master teachers are around to correct even the slightest error in the story.
I'm not sure this evidence holds. Human civilization is littered with stories passed down through communities. These stories invariably get changed. Speech itself changes from generation to generation. There's no evidence that some ancient community was more adept at this than average. This sounds a bit like a weak point in the evidential chain being lauded as air tight. Where is the evidence of master teachers correcting every last mistake?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 10:40 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Try to tell a coherent (and factual) story about something that happened 5 years ago, never mind 50. Our memories are tragically flawed. 20 - 50 years is a long time for a story to trans-mutate
No, my point was that Paul was writing in real time of his own conversion experience, his interaction with the Apostles (those that were actually with Jesus), discussing the Christian walk, and explaining the intricacies of the Christian faith as early as 20-50 years after Jesus. This contradicts the point that Christianity was made up 80 years after Jesus died and that it was dependent on the written gospel.

Regarding the accuracy of the oral tradition - most of the research I've read comes from a Jewish or Christian author, and even though they site "secular" research - I doubt you would accept it.

Even if we reject the accuracy of the gospels - it is still the only record we have of what Jesus said and did. Trying to paint a total picture of Jesus outside of those gospels is not good science. Sure, you may be able to discover a little more about what food he possibly ate or what sort of home he possibly lived in - but that's really what you are limited to. You cannot accurately accept/reject anything about the story of Jesus Christ unless it is by debate of those texts.

For instance - you read the Gospel of John the other night. You came away with a picture of who Jesus was - but you were not convinced he was the Son of God, even though he claimed to be. You rejected his claim. And that's fine. That's a valid conclusion. But it wouldn't be valid if you read the same text and came away thinking Jesus a wall street trader.
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 11:15 AM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Am I the only one who thinks anything more than a dozen or so pages on 'historical' Jesus is mostly conjecture and a waste of time? How much information really exists about the man? (actual information. The bible doesn't count)
very little
__________________
AEON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 12:07 PM   #59
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
No, my point was that Paul was writing in real time of his own conversion experience, his interaction with the Apostles (those that were actually with Jesus), discussing the Christian walk, and explaining the intricacies of the Christian faith as early as 20-50 years after Jesus. This contradicts the point that Christianity was made up 80 years after Jesus died and that it was dependent on the written gospel.

Regarding the accuracy of the oral tradition - most of the research I've read comes from a Jewish or Christian author, and even though they site "secular" research - I doubt you would accept it.

Even if we reject the accuracy of the gospels - it is still the only record we have of what Jesus said and did. Trying to paint a total picture of Jesus outside of those gospels is not good science. Sure, you may be able to discover a little more about what food he possibly ate or what sort of home he possibly lived in - but that's really what you are limited to. You cannot accurately accept/reject anything about the story of Jesus Christ unless it is by debate of those texts.
I think perhaps what JT is getting at is that you would think that, if Jesus was what he is claimed to be in the gospels, there would be more historical texts (contemporary to his time) that documented his life, or at least made mention of him.

Whether the gospels support the claim that he's the son of God is kind of beside JT's point (correct me if I'm wrong here, JT).
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 12:25 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
No, my point was that Paul was writing in real time of his own conversion experience, his interaction with the Apostles (those that were actually with Jesus), discussing the Christian walk, and explaining the intricacies of the Christian faith as early as 20-50 years after Jesus. This contradicts the point that Christianity was made up 80 years after Jesus died and that it was dependent on the written gospel.
My point is though that 50 years or 80 years (really, I didn't take much time to look up the number. I more or less just wrote it down) is irrelevant. Even if we take your lowest estimate, 20 years is a long time to have a story change. It's a long time to forget most of the details. It's a long time to remember things in a way that has little to do with the way they actually happened. It's a long time to change the way you tell a story. And when you also take into account the supernatural flourishes that were thrown in, what factual information does it still retain?

Quote:

Trying to paint a total picture of Jesus outside of those gospels is not good science.
And I'm arguing that using the text to claim a realistic profile of a real man is not good science either.

Quote:
For instance - you read the Gospel of John the other night. You came away with a picture of who Jesus was - but you were not convinced he was the Son of God, even though he claimed to be. You rejected his claim. And that's fine. That's a valid conclusion. But it wouldn't be valid if you read the same text and came away thinking Jesus a wall street trader.
Right. But I also, given the scarcity of evidence of the real man, come away believing that what I had just read were not factual accounts of actual events. I'm not doubting Jesus was a real person - the way he's shoe horned into the prophecies is reason enough to believe he existed - I'm doubting that there is any actual accounts of who he really was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I think perhaps what JT is getting at is that you would think that, if Jesus was what he is claimed to be in the gospels, there would be more historical texts (contemporary to his time) that documented his life, or at least made mention of him.

Whether the gospels support the claim that he's the son of God is kind of beside JT's point (correct me if I'm wrong here, JT).

And we'd need secondary sources if we really wanted to investigate the actual man.
__________________

__________________
Jive Turkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com