This topic contains 41 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Sorry I just have to say one more thing. @Richard saying that you have to be hypocritical for it would otherwise bog down the conversation does not make you not. I wasn’t needlessly labeling you, it was more an observation but it is exactly what you are doing and I think you already know that. If don’t trust history as an academic source for fact finding, then don’t use it, especially when it comes to substantiating your own world views. And I understand that you weren’t fishing for a response from me, but if you post something this controversial on a forum full of people you need to be prepared to be challenged. If that doesn’t interest you then put a disclaimer up saying you aren’t interested in debate, merely forwarding what you believe. Either respect history, it rules and the debate, or don’t and leave it alone. Its that simple.
I just want to add that I’m oddly pleased that you used “hapaxlegomena”, David, because it came up on my screen saver at work today, so I immediately knew what you meant!
Wade.
I think questioning the official histories is an important modern day task that we must undertake and embrace. As Elaine Pagels has taught us, the official “gospel” overpowered the majority report of the gnostic ones. The picture of early christianity that our gospels and NT portray is completely different than the one all the other documents testify to. I believe dissecting this history and extracting the truth is a wearisome and impossible task. But I respect scholars’ attempts to do so.
It seems to me two things are happening here: a serious questioning of “history” as it has been delivered to us, and a serious attempt to respectfully preserve what might or might not be true within this “history”.
I’ve appreciated this discussion because, as I said, it gets to the heart of what many of us on TLS are struggling with. This discussion articulates it well.
@Rick Either respect history, it rules and the debate, or don’t and leave it alone. Its that simple.
The beauty of freedom is that I don’t have to agree to the rules. I get to think for myself. If I respected the rules I would still be a believer. So if we are playing by the rules you have chosen then you won.
In terms of history we are really dealing with methods to define probabilities. The problem with probabilities is that sometimes the 10 percent chance idea is the right one and the 90 percent is wrong. At that point the probability disappears.
In this particular debate we have no way of being certain that Jesus existed or not, so the only certainty we can have is that you won based on the rules you have chosen to follow.
The general purpose of TLS is the flesh out ways of being in the world in a much more practical way. I am much more interested in reality than in the probabilities set up by historians. They are trying to solve a different problem than I am. They are trying to construct as accurate a narrative possible within the very limited information we have. So they have to constrain the standard of truth to something that is pragmatic. I’m not really interested in that game other than curiosity.
The one thing we can verify is that no one in our lifetime has demonstrated the ability to raise the dead, heal the sick, change water into wine, cause storms to stop, or walk on water. If that were the case we wouldn’t be having this discussion. To me, Jesus is just another magical deity among many others with magic powers. So when books written 2000 years ago claim to have the truth about life and start describing this being with these magic powers I think it’s reasonable to suspect the whole enterprise.
I’m still feel embarrassment that I taught these things to others. I realized the only reason I believed them to be true was that I was brain washed from a child to believe them and this caused me to construct my whole reality around these assumptions.
I have found that people set up rules as a way of constraining thought. I find myself in the position of the child pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. And, to me, this is what Biblical studies are. (not bible history
I don’t really care if you call me a hypocrite or uneducated. Those have been both true at some time in my life. And if those labels are useful for you to understand me then use them all you want.
Then what was the point of all of this? All you have gone and done is state first of all:
While much of the study of history is speculative, one can see patterns develop as you collect a large enough body of evidence. D.M. Murdock has done an excellent job of documenting and discovering a large body of evidence on the Christ myth and piecing together a very complex puzzle of how Christianity came to be. It is worth understanding, even if you don’t agree.
And then systemically contradict this statement by claiming that such historical evidence can’t be trusted and any sense of historical accuracy is a “myth”, the irony is, you say ‘It is worth understanding, even if you don’t agree’ when by your own logic and understanding of history, you don’t agree either. You cannot use history without respecting its rules (and no they are not my rules), just like you can’t claim something is scientific without following the rules of science. But instead of trying to understand this point, and acknowledge that you are being hypocritical you just talk over it and pretend it doesn’t matter. I mean okay fine, you have your reasons for dismissing history as a means to objective truth, I and all of the historic community would disagree but that’s just your prerogative, but all you have done upon establishing this is rendered this entire thread utterly pointless. Its like someone arguing with their friends over the importance of gender equality and then going home and expecting their wife to cook them a meal. This really has been one of the must confusing discussions I have engaged with. So yeah, that’s me done on this thread.
Well, I’m not claiming that D.M. Murdock can definitively determine that Jesus didn’t exist. It appears, to me, to be more plausible. That’s my point. I’m not claiming to know. You seem to want me to jump through all these hoops to make you happy. I’m not interested in that since you can simply read her book if you like. No one is forcing you to have this conversation.
The beauty of freedom is that I don’t have to agree to the rules. I get to think for myself. If I respected the rules I would still be a believer. So if we are playing by the rules you have chosen then you won.
It seems to me that the reason I was no longer willing to have the discussion with you about whether I thought science could be viewed to support the existence of God was because this freedom to think for myself is precisely what you kept trying to deny me. I never once claimed that science supported the belief in God, but rather that science and its discoveries made the presence of a creator God more likely in my mind. I don’t want to start that debate all over again believe me. But this example speaks well to the issue of bias I commented on earlier.
Well, I’m not claiming that D.M. Murdock can definitively determine that Jesus didn’t exist. It appears, to me, to be more plausible. That’s my point. I’m not claiming to know. You seem to want me to jump through all these hoops to make you happy. I’m not interested in that since you can simply read her book if you like. No one is forcing you to have this conversation.
And this is almost verbatim the point I was trying to get you to understand. More plausible to me…not in any way claiming some type of proof. I find the existence of a creator God is the “more plausible” (to me) explanation for the universe based on what science tells us about it.
@Gary It seems to me that the reason I was no longer willing to have the discussion with you about whether I thought science could be viewed to support the existence of God was because this freedom to think for myself is precisely what you kept trying to deny me.
Well, first of all I don’t have the power to deny or give you the ability to think for yourself. You have to claim that for yourself.
@Gary I never once claimed that science supported the belief in God, but rather that science and its discoveries made the presence of a creator God more likely in my mind.
And I told you I understood that and I didn’t have a problem with that approach, but you seemed unable to hear that.
What I kept repeating was the definition for scientific theory. You kept insisting that your belief was a scientific theory. You just need to rename it as a belief or a philosophy or a hypothesis. I don’t really care if you call it a theory, but most scientists (atheist or Christian) are going to cringe when you use the term scientific theory.
Actually your recollection of what I was “insisting” is totally inaccurate. In fact we put that issue to rest very early in our conversation. And I was the one who was unwilling to discuss it further because you were not hearing what I was saying.
Take my observations in the spirit intended or don’t. I am not attacking you. I hope you can reflect on them as a reason to do some self evaluation. But that is entirely up to you.
I have very much enjoyed your contributions to TLS even if we are unable to to have productive dialogue between us.
@Richard Well, I’m not claiming that D.M. Murdock can definitively determine that Jesus didn’t exist. It appears, to me, to be more plausible. That’s my point. I’m not claiming to know. You seem to want me to jump through all these hoops to make you happy. I’m not interested in that since you can simply read her book if you like. No one is forcing you to have this conversation.
@Gary And this is almost verbatim the point I was trying to get you to understand. More plausible to me…not in any way claiming some type of proof. I find the existence of a creator God is the “more plausible” (to me) explanation for the universe based on what science tells us about it.I can see how you might think these are similar. The difference is I’m not trying to get my view classified as a formal historical claim. For lack of another term I’m not claiming it’s a historical theory. I give my own view about as much weight as how far I can throw a cruise ship.
Rick is right in that there all these formalized methods of classifying historical narratives, but I don’t really put a lot of value to those because none of them will give us a definitive answer. They don’t have the reliability of a scientific method. The scientific method produces theories that produce near 100 percent reproducibility. History doesn’t have the luxury.
So, while I find D.M. Murdock very interesting and she provides an alternate explanation for the formation of Christianity that, to me, is equally plausible to the majority accepted ones, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was wrong if someday we could go back in time and check for ourselves. In fact I think everybody is wrong because we are coming to conclusions based on very little information.
My conclusions come from my study of human nature and the myth making processes that I have been able to observe directly. They are more similar to what D. M. Murdock describes than the formal historical mainstream.@Gary Actually your recollection of what I was “insisting” is totally inaccurate. In fact we put that issue to rest very early in our conversation. And I was the one who was unwilling to discuss it further because you were not hearing what I was saying.
Well, I did go back and read our conversation. If you aren’t claiming your view is a scientific theory then I’m good. Even if you are, I’m good, but I strongly disagree.
And I’m sorry that I came across not hearing what you were saying. I did hear that it seemed more likely to you that a creator was behind all reality. I do understand how one might look at complexity and decide there is a conscious being behind it. I did hear that.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.