|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#41 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 02:24 PM
|
I typed this up a few times and kept hating the way I was wording things, so I hope I don't screw this up and you can get the gist.
__________________He's not just studying scripture and teachings and writing about the nature of religion. He's aiming to write an historical book about an historical figure. That's not the same kind of scrutiny. That he is a believer at all, of any religion, is the bias against historical objectivity in this pursuit. His Islamic belief is potentially a separate bias. Taken together, along with the FOX News debacle, makes the subject much more muddy than it needs to be. If he were a believing Christian writing the same book, it's the same issue with objectivity. So why is Aslan supposed to be offered more benefit of the doubt? That he's also both a Muslim and an ex-Christian makes his intent more suspicious. But we don't really need to know his intent to question the validity of his objectivity. But the issue of intent might just reaffirm that he is truly biased. That's what I meant by "double whammy". The method to research the historical Jesus is heavily...clouded. Bias is grand sin to that pursuit. Is Aslan is a believer (or specifically a Muslim) because of the result of his academic research? If he claimed he is, this by itself would call into a question the very methods of his academic pursuit. Otherwise he isn't using that objective approach in order to become a believer regardless. So either way, I don't like his approach to historical Jesus. It's a much more complicated matter, to me, than simply saying A) this man is a vaunted religious scholar and having this as an 'accepted wisdom' and B) this man is a Muslim, therefore will not be fair and is seeking to debunk Jesus the Christ. I am very much in the middle of that and it is not the easiest thing to articulate in a few paragraphs on a message board. Anyhow, I wouldn't personally say he was trying to debunk Christianity. I'd say he was genuinely trying to write a secular historical book. But, that said, he has to be simply biased on the subject. And along with his active belief in a 'competing' religion, it leaves the charge of biased 'debunkery' as possible. Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
What sort of person could write that book and have it taken at face value?
__________________ |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 02:24 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
That's an unfair opinion to hold
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Acrobat
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 01:24 PM
|
Full disclosure, I didn't finish his book and mostly went through some of the major points he was making.
I don't believe he was biased, as he argues the same things many Christian scholars have been arguing for decades, and even cites them. None of the information in his book, at least from what I read, was new to me. Many people who have studied these things from a historical perspective taking more into account than just the bible hold similar conclusions. Some do disagree, for a variety of reasons. What I personally can't stand is that a man who is arguing something many Christian scholars have argued is being accused of "bias" solely because he's Muslim. It's just not a fair opinion. There are some historical topics related to Jesus that I didn't see in his book that anyone with anti-Jesus bias could have easily used in order to "smear" Jesus. He didn't use that information, even though other scholars whose work I have read have used it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 08:24 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 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)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 06:24 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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 08:24 PM
|
Quote:
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... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
Quote:
But how do you take a document on its word when it includes supernatural claims? What document of Jesus' life exists from his time? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 06:24 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
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
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
|
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. 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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | ||
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
|
Quote:
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. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:24 PM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,669
Local Time: 03:24 PM
|
Quote:
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). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | ||||
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:24 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() And we'd need secondary sources if we really wanted to investigate the actual man. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|