| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2007 03:27:28 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
As cynical as I am about the words of Jesus actually coming from a single person and actually being transcribed as stated, I still feel a very personal connection to most of his words. |
Read that whole passage of Luke and ask yourself who is recording these events. These are very specific quotes relayed decades later by people who weren't actually present. Imagine a reporter today getting such a detailed account of every conversation from say, 1978... without the benefit of tapes or other written records, and after many of those featured in private conversations were long since dead. |
Kind of like Socrates who relied on Plato to record his lessons who inturn taught them to Aristotle. Today I can read Socrates as though I am a student of his in his classroom - eventhough he did not personally record a single notation. I am not sure if every Socratic lesson read today was translated from an original Platonian text, but I doubt it was. Yet, we are reasonably sure of what Socrates said. |
No, we are not reasonably sure of what Socrates said. Plato had his own agenda.
As to Jesus, the most likely scenario is that a collection of quotes were being passed around, perhaps an oral tradition at first, and certain stories about the life of Jesus were being passed around, definitely an oral tradition. These two traditions may or may not have been related to each other. The Gospel writers never met anybody named Jesus. They took the two oral traditions and combined them, creating an overarching narrative to support whatever their flavor of Christianity was. Four Gospels, four different narratives. They are a fascinating and brilliant act of literature. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:33:48 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
As cynical as I am about the words of Jesus actually coming from a single person and actually being transcribed as stated, I still feel a very personal connection to most of his words. |
Read that whole passage of Luke and ask yourself who is recording these events. These are very specific quotes relayed decades later by people who weren't actually present. Imagine a reporter today getting such a detailed account of every conversation from say, 1978... without the benefit of tapes or other written records, and after many of those featured in private conversations were long since dead. |
Kind of like Socrates who relied on Plato to record his lessons who inturn taught them to Aristotle. |
Two differences: 1. Plato knew Socrates, was his pupil in fact. 2. Nobody uses the dialogues as an instrument to inflict blunt-force trauma on people. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:43:03 PM · #353 |
I'm not aware that anybody has ever argued that Plato's "Dialogues" are the actual words of Socrates.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 07:12:58 AM · #354 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not aware that anybody has ever argued that Plato's "Dialogues" are the actual words of Socrates.
R. |
I hope I am not saying that the Dialogues are the actual words of Socrates. If that is what I said, then I would have to amend it. I do think that I tried to draw a parrallel between a couple of teachers long ago, whose students captured their lesson plans, passed them on, and we read them today, as if we were in the classroom. For some here, the length to which they will go to undermine a lesson is (in my opinion) much farther in criticizing scripture than other translated works. That was my point.
I have read the arguments that the difference in critique is justified due to the nature of scripture and the mis-use of it through out the centuries. Mis-using a translated work is not the fault of the teacher, but rather the student.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 07:29:59 AM · #355 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I hope I am not saying that the Dialogues are the actual words of Socrates. |
No, not at all; my point (and others have made it I believe, in this thread) is that the "actual words" claim IS made for what Christ says in the Bible, and His words are given moral authority. So we have to approach things differently, is what I mean...
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 08:50:22 AM · #356 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not aware that anybody has ever argued that Plato's "Dialogues" are the actual words of Socrates.
R. |
I hope I am not saying that the Dialogues are the actual words of Socrates. If that is what I said, then I would have to amend it. I do think that I tried to draw a parrallel between a couple of teachers long ago, whose students captured their lesson plans, passed them on, and we read them today, as if we were in the classroom. |
I think though the parallel you draw actually undermines the point about 'things said by Christ'. Plato in particular was very likely using the Socrates character as a mouthpiece for his own philosophy. Most readers of Plato tend to assume that Socrates is a dramatised character that provides a mix of Plato's opinions and those that may have been Socrates. There is so many inconsistences that the biggest challenge is trying to work out what might have been Socrates views and what might have been Plato's. He had a whole other agenda, than just passing on the the lessons of Socrates.
From the 'other' thread:
Originally posted by Gordon:
From the little study I've done over the years on Greek philosophy I think rather the opposite is true. It's just about impossible to tell where Socrates ends and Plato begins in terms of opinion. Comparing Plato's record with the Socrates of other authors also leads to a maze of contradictions and fictional accounts for effect. Which is all perfectly reasonable ,unless you expect be reading Socrates actual words, translated in to English via those subsequent authors.
|
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 08:51:20. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 08:58:48 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think though the parallel you draw actually undermines the point about 'things said by Christ'. Plato in particular was very likely using the Socrates character as a mouthpiece for his own philosophy. Most readers of Plato tend to assume that Socrates is a dramatised character that provides a mix of Plato's opinions and those that may have been Socrates. There is so many inconsistencies that the biggest challenge is trying to work out what might have been Socrates views and what might have been Plato's. He had a whole other agenda, than just passing on the the lessons of Socrates. |
Absolutely. The parallel is even more compelling when you consider there are those scholars who doubt that the "Socrates" described by Plato actually existed, and consider him to be essentially a fictional creation. I realize you imply this position in your post, btw, but you don't explicitly state it so I am underscoring it.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:24:44 AM · #358 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think though the parallel you draw actually undermines the point about 'things said by Christ'. Plato in particular was very likely using the Socrates character as a mouthpiece for his own philosophy. Most readers of Plato tend to assume that Socrates is a dramatised character that provides a mix of Plato's opinions and those that may have been Socrates. There is so many inconsistencies that the biggest challenge is trying to work out what might have been Socrates views and what might have been Plato's. He had a whole other agenda, than just passing on the the lessons of Socrates. |
Absolutely. The parallel is even more compelling when you consider there are those scholars who doubt that the "Socrates" described by Plato actually existed, and consider him to be essentially a fictional creation. I realize you imply this position in your post, btw, but you don't explicitly state it so I am underscoring it.
R. |
Please help me with this. I read above that some believe that Socrates was a fictional character. Yet my memory recalls that Socrates was a historical figure who committed suicide by drinking a beverage with hemlock. I do concede that my age is taking a toll, so any clarification would be appreciated.
Is it the position of Gordon/Bear_Music that Socrates did not really exist, as scalvert implys could be the case for Jesus as no video is available to prove it?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:32:15 AM · #359 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Absolutely. The parallel is even more compelling when you consider there are those scholars who doubt that the "Socrates" described by Plato actually existed, and consider him to be essentially a fictional creation. |
Hm? I've never heard that taken as a scholarly position before... considering he is satirized by his contemporary Aristophanes and appears in other philosophers' works than Plato, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that he was an actual historical figure.
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 11:32:53. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:40:27 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Absolutely. The parallel is even more compelling when you consider there are those scholars who doubt that the "Socrates" described by Plato actually existed, and consider him to be essentially a fictional creation. |
Hm? I've never heard that taken as a scholarly position before... considering he is satirized by his contemporary Aristophanes and appears in other philosophers' works than Plato, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that he was an actual historical figure. |
I think that what Bear means is not to dispute the existence of the historical Socrates, but that the words Plato attributes to Socrates may not actually be the words of Socrates, but those of Plato instead. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:44:25 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Absolutely. The parallel is even more compelling when you consider there are those scholars who doubt that the "Socrates" described by Plato actually existed, and consider him to be essentially a fictional creation. |
Hm? I've never heard that taken as a scholarly position before... considering he is satirized by his contemporary Aristophanes and appears in other philosophers' works than Plato, I thought it was a foregone conclusion that he was an actual historical figure. |
I think that what Bear means is not to dispute the existence of the historical Socrates, but that the words Plato attributes to Socrates may not actually be the words of Socrates, but those of Plato instead. |
I got that from a previous post, and I think that's generally accepted by most everyone, but he seems to have said Socrates is considered by some scholars as a fictional character. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:45:10 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Is it the position of Gordon/Bear_Music that Socrates did not really exist, as scalvert implys could be the case for Jesus as no video is available to prove it? |
I never implied any such thing. I said video would demonstrate that an event took place. There very likely was a Jesus, probably more than one person with that name, but there is zero evidence of supernatural events actually tied to that person- only stories, written decades later.
Plato's version of Socrates' teaching may or may not be accurate. If Plato attributes a quote to his teacher, he may have taken some liberties with the words or simply inferred it from memory or interpretation, but at least he was there. Not so the authors of the Gospels, who attribute specific words to Jesus, even in private conversations, without any possibility of firsthand knowledge whatsoever.
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 11:56:11. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:54:51 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think that what Bear means is not to dispute the existence of the historical Socrates, but that the words Plato attributes to Socrates may not actually be the words of Socrates, but those of Plato instead. |
I got that from a previous post, and I think that's generally accepted by most everyone, but he seems to have said Socrates is considered by some scholars as a fictional character. |
No, I meant that it's generally agreed that Plato, in effect, modeled his Socrates after a historical figure but essentially fictionalized him in the sense that Plato uses Socrates to push his (Plato's) own spin on things.
I definitely agree Socrates most likely existed and most likely did teach using what is now called the "Socratic" method of teaching by asking questions.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 11:59:13 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
There very likely was a Jesus, probably more than one person with that name... |
There are several such people today, I even know a few guys named Jesus.
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 12:00:19. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:10:22 PM · #365 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Is it the position of Gordon/Bear_Music that Socrates did not really exist, as scalvert implys could be the case for Jesus as no video is available to prove it? |
I never implied any such thing. I said video would demonstrate that an event took place. There very likely was a Jesus, probably more than one person with that name, but there is zero evidence of supernatural events actually tied to that person- only stories, written decades later.
Plato's version of Socrates' teaching may or may not be accurate. If Plato attributes a quote to his teacher, he may have taken some liberties with the words or simply inferred it from memory or interpretation, but at least he was there. Not so the authors of the Gospels, who attribute specific words to Jesus, even in private conversations, without any possibility of firsthand knowledge whatsoever. |
I reason I believe you inferred/implied, is due to your repeated claims that A Jesus, several Jesus's, even Jesus in multiple decades/centuries, existed, thereby minimalizing the Jesus aka The Messiah. Thus you imply that Jesus the Messiah (or Christ) did not exist.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:14:38 PM · #366 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Thus you imply that Jesus the Messiah (or Christ) did not exist. |
I've been very specific and consistent on this point. The person may very well have existed, but there is no actual evidence of any supernatural events attributed to that person. None. Zilch. All you have are stories, no more verifiable than Harry Potter (and about as likely). Even Paul, who apparently lived during the same time and spent a good chunk of his life telling everyone all about Jesus) was seemingly unaware of any miracles. Look at the Espistles... Virgin birth? Nope. Water to wine? Nothing. Walking on water? Nuh, uh. What should have been the most persuasive arguments for how special the guy was are conspicuously absent.
Originally posted by scalvert:
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity. |
Message edited by author 2007-12-11 12:27:48. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:30:55 PM · #367 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Thus you imply that Jesus the Messiah (or Christ) did not exist. |
I've been very specific and consistent on this point. The person may very well have existed, but there is no actual evidence of any supernatural events attributed to that person. None. Zilch. All you have are stories, no more verifiable than Harry Potter (and about as likely). |
This is a major clarification for me. I am gald to read that you do not claim that Jesus the Messiah as referenced in the New Testament Gospels was a fictional character, merely that the miracles attributed to him (like raising the dead, curing leprosy, allowing the lame to walk, and his resurection) are not provable.
Since there is no proof of his miracles, then you ascribe that his divinity is questionable (perhaps even improbable), thus one of your premises for atheism. Correct?
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:51:15 PM · #368 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This is a major clarification for me. I am gald to read that you do not claim that Jesus the Messiah as referenced in the New Testament Gospels was a fictional character, merely that the miracles attributed to him (like raising the dead, curing leprosy, allowing the lame to walk, and his resurection) are not provable.
Since there is no proof of his miracles, then you ascribe that his divinity is questionable (perhaps even improbable), thus one of your premises for atheism. Correct? |
This is pretty close to my position -- there may or may not have been a person who formed the basis for the stories in the Gospels, but with no evidence for God (and thus no Son of God) I deal with those parts of the book as allegorical. But, to me, whether the historical Jesus was the Christ/Messiah or not is irrelevant to evaluating -- and hopefully following -- (most of) His teachings. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 12:59:04 PM · #369 |
We can reasonably take for granted that the historical Jesus did exist, that He did preach, that He did have disciples, and that very He was crucified by the Romans. I haven't really seen anyone in here denying that this is probable/possible. It is, of course, a leap of faith to move from that to acceptance of His divinity, even for those who do acknowledge the existence of God.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:07:03 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We can reasonably take for granted that the historical Jesus did exist, that He did preach, that He did have disciples, and that very He was crucified by the Romans. I haven't really seen anyone in here denying that this is probable/possible. |
I did. I don't categorically accept that he was an actual historical figure, given the corollaries between his mythos and that of Dionysus and others. |
|
|
|
12/11/2007 01:09:31 PM · #371 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
We can reasonably take for granted that the historical Jesus did exist, that He did preach, that He did have disciples, and that very He was crucified by the Romans. I haven't really seen anyone in here denying that this is probable/possible. |
I did. I don't categorically accept that he was an actual historical figure, given the corollaries between his mythos and that of Dionysus and others. |
OK, there's one on the side of denial :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:30:17 AM · #372 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Since there is no proof of his miracles, then you ascribe that his divinity is questionable (perhaps even improbable), thus one of your premises for atheism. Correct? |
One slight leap of logic here is your seeming assumption that atheism is an absence of belief in a Christian god. Atheism is the absence of belief in any god.
You too are atheistic in respect of thousands of gods. However, my starting point is that there are no gods (rather than one), and none of the religious stories that I have studied have persuaded me to the contrary.
Rather than being a premise (that the Christian god does not exist), the improbability of Christ's divinity is just one more affirmation of my decision not to believe in that god. My rejection of the Christian god is nothing but one more alongside my rejection (like yours) of hundreds of other gods of whom I am aware.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 04:19:10 AM · #373 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity. |
Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't the fact that his message, which has spread so far and so wide and has reverberated so strongly with so many people throughout history that, that alone constitutes a miracle in it's own right?
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 04:25:30.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 07:05:02 AM · #374 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
Since there is no proof of his miracles, then you ascribe that his divinity is questionable (perhaps even improbable), thus one of your premises for atheism. Correct? |
One slight leap of logic here is your seeming assumption that atheism is an absence of belief in a Christian god. Atheism is the absence of belief in any god.
You too are atheistic in respect of thousands of gods. However, my starting point is that there are no gods (rather than one), and none of the religious stories that I have studied have persuaded me to the contrary.
Rather than being a premise (that the Christian god does not exist), the improbability of Christ's divinity is just one more affirmation of my decision not to believe in that god. My rejection of the Christian god is nothing but one more alongside my rejection (like yours) of hundreds of other gods of whom I am aware. |
I believe I addressed your point by use of the word one. As in; "thus one of your premises for atheism". Meaning that I recognized that other premises, even for other/all gods existed.
I agree that I do not believe in "other" gods. However, since I do believe in a God, then I am not an atheist. Anyone who believes in a god/gods, is not an atheist, even if they do not believe in all gods that have ever been worshipped. Your point is that a person can be both an atheist and a theist, and my point is that if a person is a theist, then by defination they cannot be an atheist.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 07:12:38 AM · #375 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A Jesus actually exists in the 21st century, too, as well as the 20th, 19th, 18th... and likely well before the 1st. So? Even if you accept Paul's account of Jesus as historical, he attributed no supernatural acts of any kind to the guy. That a man existed is not proof (nor even evidence) of miracles or divinity. |
Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't the fact that his message, which has spread so far and so wide and has reverberated so strongly with so many people throughout history that, that alone constitutes a miracle in it's own right? |
Some of the posts here read as though some posters believe the reason the "word" has spread is due to man's greed at controlling his fellow man, his ignorance to blindly follow what the leaders of his day said, and of course that evil empire "the Church" for lying to the world for these last 2000 years. (even with one of the greatest libraries ever assembled of known original works - at the Vatican).
|
|
