God is Imaginary
Replies
-
It's worth noting that even some early Christians (such as Lucian and Arius) did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. It's also worth noting that the New Testament did not exist as we know it until the 5th century CE - 400 years after the events were supposed to have happened.
More half-truths and distortions. Of course some early “Christians” denied the divinity of Jesus. These were theological debates about Jesus but not debates about whether Jesus existed or whether the Gospels were historical. Arius, for instance, believed that Jesus was actually a “created god”, created by the eternal God before the creation of the universe. Regarding the New Testament, all the books of the New Testament were written in the first century and circulated as a collection by the beginning of the second century, as seen in the Muratorian Canon/Fragment. There were ongoing debates about some books in the New Testament for a number of centuries but your comments can easily be taken to mean the books did not exist before the 5th century. That would be totally false.0 -
The claim about Mark come from Eusebius who says that Paul brought him on as a companion and interpreter on the way to Rome. He wrote down all of Paul's sermons and wrote the Gospel at that time before he left to found the Church in Alexandria.
My last paragraph is not false since you are unable to use a text to prove that it is accurate. There are no other historical texts that attest to Jesus supernatural acts or origins so I would naturally be unable to independently verify the validity of the Biblical text.
Please provide your primary source for Mark writing his Gospel based on Paul’s sermons, etc. Eusebius quotes Papias as a primary source for his claim that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome based on the stories he heard from Peter, not Paul.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul are all witnesses to the miracles of Jesus. You want me to provide a historical source that speaks of the miracles of Jesus but does not witness to the miracles of Jesus! That is nonsense.0 -
The bible is not a historical text. It is a religious text and needs to be treated as such.
That is an assertion. I assert the opposite: The Bible bears witness to real historical events, some of them miraculous in nature.0 -
The bible is not a historical text. It is a religious text and needs to be treated as such.
That is an assertion. I assert the opposite: The Bible bears witness to real historical events, some of them miraculous in nature.
Then you have left the realm of scholarly research and moved into belief and faith. There is no problem with this on its own but it cannot be asserted as scholarly. The Bible is a religious text, much like the Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita and Epic of Gilgamesh.0 -
I propose we stop debating with wineplease. The arguments keep going in circles and she keeps demanding scholarly sources while providing none herself.0
-
Are you serious? I thought I listed Witherington, Wright and Carson earlier. I can give you numerous others if you want. The difference is that I've been reading these sources more than 20 years and I get the feeling you are just grabbing references off the Internet without really understanding what you are reading.I propose we stop debating with wineplease. The arguments keep going in circles and she keeps demanding scholarly sources while providing none herself.0 -
Are you serious? I thought I listed Witherington, Wright and Carson earlier. I can give you numerous others if you want. The difference is that I've been reading these sources more than 20 years and I get the feeling you are just grabbing references off the Internet without really understanding what you are reading.I propose we stop debating with wineplease. The arguments keep going in circles and she keeps demanding scholarly sources while providing none herself.
I must have missed that.0 -
Then you have left the realm of scholarly research and moved into belief and faith. There is no problem with this on its own but it cannot be asserted as scholarly. The Bible is a religious text, much like the Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita and Epic of Gilgamesh.
Again, your assertions are simply false. You should take the time to read authors like F F Bruce and N T Wright on the historicity of the biblical documents. Your assertions are patently false to one who has really studied these areas.0 -
Then you have left the realm of scholarly research and moved into belief and faith. There is no problem with this on its own but it cannot be asserted as scholarly. The Bible is a religious text, much like the Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita and Epic of Gilgamesh.
Again, your assertions are simply false. You should take the time to read authors like F F Bruce and N T Wright on the historicity of the biblical documents. Your assertions are patently false to one who has really studied these areas.
My degree is in Philosophy and Religion and I have studied these areas. Both scholars you have presented are evangelical scholars who start from an assertion that the Bible is a true historical document and then research backwards in order to prove this assertion. This is dishonest scholarship at best.0 -
My biggest problem with religous text is that it has all been edited for content.... If the Vatican would like me to believe in their church then I want access to all of the documents in the vault under the vatican please.... Many of which contradict what the chirch teaches which is why they have been edited out........
Just to throw a fun litle loop out their didn't Buddha tell of Jesus coming something like 500 years before he was born......
BTW no one is going to disway anyone from their beliefs so while it is amusing to read don't lets yourselves get to heated over this debate..... Everyone has the right to believe what they like and no one should mock anyone elses beliefs.0 -
BTW no one is going to disway anyone from their beliefs so while it is amusing to read don't lets yourselves get to heated over this debate..... Everyone has the right to believe what they like and no one should mock anyone elses beliefs.
I don't think anyone here has gotten heated over this debate. I don't think any of us debating here believes we will change each others' minds. I would hope in a debate group, people would enjoy debating.0 -
My degree is in Philosophy and Religion and I have studied these areas. Both scholars you have presented are evangelical scholars who start from an assertion that the Bible is a true historical document and then research backwards in order to prove this assertion. This is dishonest scholarship at best.
It is unfair to accuse either Bruce or Wright of the methodology you describe. Wright’s book on “The New Testament and the People of God” is a very careful study of methods of historical research, presuppositions of these methodologies, etc. His approach to the Historical Jesus and analysis of the Gospels definitely does not begin with the assumption of the Bible’s accuracy. To the contrary, Wright begins with a careful study of “Second Temple Judaism,” from the sources that remain, reconstructs the first-century historical context, and then reads the Gospels in that setting. His 800 page book on the Resurrection narratives is a masterpiece of historical study and he nowhere asserts the truth of the accounts and then “works backwards.” Secondly, F. F. Bruce’s books on the historical reliability of the New Testament, the New Testament historical background, etc., are 20th century “classics” that are respected even by those who disagree with his conclusions.
Where did you earn your degree in Philosophy and Religion? I’m betting you absorbed a good deal of presuppositions of your own regarding historical texts.0 -
BTW no one is going to disway anyone from their beliefs so while it is amusing to read don't lets yourselves get to heated over this debate..... Everyone has the right to believe what they like and no one should mock anyone elses beliefs.
I don't think anyone here has gotten heated over this debate. I don't think any of us debating here believes we will change each others' minds. I would hope in a debate group, people would enjoy debating.
Oh I agree ....But I have seen how nasty these arguements can get and would hope everyone in here can play like adults which so far seems to be the case0 -
You're the one with the Bible. What would life have been like if Eve hadn't eaten the apple? That would be a perfect world.A perfect world would be one with no pain and suffering. No one would need compassion because there would be no need for it. To pull from your Bible a perfect world would be what God would have made for everyone if Eve hadn't taken a bite of an apple and caused God to throw the biggest temper tantrum ever and punished her, him, and everyone and every living thing for all eternity.
But, let's take it further. Would we need to have jobs, or would everything be free? Certainly many people believe having to work for a living isn't a perfect world. Would we need to raise children, or would they be born perfect and know what to do? Would we need to attend school? Or would we be perfectly educated without it? Surely some people find the need for education a "suffering". What if everyone has their own view of what pain and suffering is? Then what?0 -
But, let's take it further. Would we need to have jobs, or would everything be free? Certainly many people believe having to work for a living isn't a perfect world. Would we need to raise children, or would they be born perfect and know what to do? Would we need to attend school? Or would we be perfectly educated without it? Surely some people find the need for education a "suffering". What if everyone has their own view of what pain and suffering is? Then what?You're the one with the Bible. What would life have been like if Eve hadn't eaten the apple? That would be a perfect world.
You're the one who says God is an a-hole because he could make this a perfect world, but chooses not to. Those were your words. You don't think compassion, empathy, sypmathy, generosity are important to the human experience. So, I'm asking YOU to describe this perfect world where God would not be an a-hole in your eyes. I'm curious what all you want from Him and what would happen if this world was perfect.0 -
Wow, pissy much? I responded to one post from a previous page and you start sounding off about how many times you've asked a question? (That I answered as I got to it BTW.) How many times have you been asked to provide proof without giving your opinion or quoting the Bible? (Hint: It's a helluva lot more than 3 times.) Still waiting though.
You don't consider eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus as proof. I bet if God showed up in your living room, you'd still offer some other explanation. You willfully choose to reject God. I get that. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I have offered quite a bit on the subject supporting the existence of God.
You didn't offer eyewitness accounts. You offered stories of eyewitness accounts from the Bible in order to prove the Bible. It's no different than offering stories of Odysseus's travels to prove Greek Mythology. The problem is what someone else said - you believe the Bible to be a reference book but you are debating against people who believe it's a story book. That's why I keep going back to mythology - to try to get you to understand that when you offer what you deem to be proof it's no different than if I tried to debate that Greek Mythology is real and showed proof by quoting the Odyssey. You would never accept that as proof and would continue to ask for something outside of that. That's what we're asking of you. Aside from eyewitnesses in the Bible the only other eyewitness accounts I know of are people who see Jesus in burned toast.
However, if God did show up in my living room or if when I die I'm shown proof of His existence I will drop to my knees, immediately admit that I was wrong, and beg forgiveness. I'll do the same if it's Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or some space alien from another galaxy. Will you? If you die and are shown that the Christian God doesn't exist but that the real God is Zeus will you deny the Christian God and embrace Zeus?0 -
This thread is turning into a very miniscule version of the world. Every major conflict in history has been over religion in one form or the other.0
-
See the chart someone else posted. If God can make things wonderful and doesn't then he is an *kitten*. If you could give your kids 3 healthy meals a day, a roof over their heads, and nice clothes would you? Or would you think it more important that they learn to appreciate what they have by being grateful for a single slice of stale bread? I want to give my kids the best I can. I want them to learn compassion and empathy but I don't believe for one second that they need to experience it to have it.But, let's take it further. Would we need to have jobs, or would everything be free? Certainly many people believe having to work for a living isn't a perfect world. Would we need to raise children, or would they be born perfect and know what to do? Would we need to attend school? Or would we be perfectly educated without it? Surely some people find the need for education a "suffering". What if everyone has their own view of what pain and suffering is? Then what?You're the one with the Bible. What would life have been like if Eve hadn't eaten the apple? That would be a perfect world.
You're the one who says God is an a-hole because he could make this a perfect world, but chooses not to. Those were your words. You don't think compassion, empathy, sypmathy, generosity are important to the human experience. So, I'm asking YOU to describe this perfect world where God would not be an a-hole in your eyes. I'm curious what all you want from Him and what would happen if this world was perfect.
We lived in Germany for 1 1/2 years. During that time we went to Anne Frank's house. My kids (13 and 10 at the time) both walked out with tears in their eyes. They had the utmost compassion and empathy - way beyond what I saw some adults display - but they didn't need to live in a concentration camp to have it.0 -
We lived in Germany for 1 1/2 years. During that time we went to Anne Frank's house. My kids (13 and 10 at the time) both walked out with tears in their eyes. They had the utmost compassion and empathy - way beyond what I saw some adults display - but they didn't need to live in a concentration camp to have it.
Right. Someone else lived through that and your children gained compassion and empathy.0 -
My degree is in Philosophy and Religion and I have studied these areas. Both scholars you have presented are evangelical scholars who start from an assertion that the Bible is a true historical document and then research backwards in order to prove this assertion. This is dishonest scholarship at best.
It is unfair to accuse either Bruce or Wright of the methodology you describe. Wright’s book on “The New Testament and the People of God” is a very careful study of methods of historical research, presuppositions of these methodologies, etc. His approach to the Historical Jesus and analysis of the Gospels definitely does not begin with the assumption of the Bible’s accuracy. To the contrary, Wright begins with a careful study of “Second Temple Judaism,” from the sources that remain, reconstructs the first-century historical context, and then reads the Gospels in that setting. His 800 page book on the Resurrection narratives is a masterpiece of historical study and he nowhere asserts the truth of the accounts and then “works backwards.” Secondly, F. F. Bruce’s books on the historical reliability of the New Testament, the New Testament historical background, etc., are 20th century “classics” that are respected even by those who disagree with his conclusions.
Where did you earn your degree in Philosophy and Religion? I’m betting you absorbed a good deal of presuppositions of your own regarding historical texts.
NT Wright was an Anglican Bishop and his works (reading a handful of academic reviews) assume that miraculous events are truth and, therefore, do not allow for proper treatment of the New Testament texts.
FF Bruce is the father of the modern Evangelical interpretations of the Bible and saw the New Testament writings as historically accurate regardless of a lack of independent verifications. How can writings be seen as valid history without independent verification?
I received my degree from Colgate University. After I left, the large majority of my PR department moved to Harvard Divinity School.
We were taught to look at documents critically and in context of the time they were written. We were also taught to avoid, as much as possible, letting our personal views taint the studies.0 -
You didn't offer eyewitness accounts. You offered stories of eyewitness accounts from the Bible in order to prove the Bible. It's no different than offering stories of Odysseus's travels to prove Greek Mythology. The problem is what someone else said - you believe the Bible to be a reference book but you are debating against people who believe it's a story book. That's why I keep going back to mythology - to try to get you to understand that when you offer what you deem to be proof it's no different than if I tried to debate that Greek Mythology is real and showed proof by quoting the Odyssey. You would never accept that as proof and would continue to ask for something outside of that. That's what we're asking of you. Aside from eyewitnesses in the Bible the only other eyewitness accounts I know of are people who see Jesus in burned toast.
However, if God did show up in my living room or if when I die I'm shown proof of His existence I will drop to my knees, immediately admit that I was wrong, and beg forgiveness. I'll do the same if it's Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or some space alien from another galaxy. Will you? If you die and are shown that the Christian God doesn't exist but that the real God is Zeus will you deny the Christian God and embrace Zeus?
Well, your last sentence is the best one in your reply. “Aside from witnesses in the Bible…” None of the primary source evidence is acceptable to you. You rule it out from the start. The names Matthew and John are consistently linked to the Gospels that bear their names from the earliest manuscripts that have survived to the various references to those books. Both are eyewitnesses (both are among the original 12 Apostles). You systematically discard them and look for some other evidence. The reality is that there are no other historical records by contemporaries who lived in Galilee and Jerusalem during the life of Jesus. There are polemical references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud but those are oral traditions written down after AD 200. There are references to Jesus and the early Christians but these are from people who lived at a distance or who relied on other existing historical evidences (like Josephus).
I know of no one today who argues that Odysseus’ travels are to be taken as historical narratives (even if there are some historical features of the ancient epics). I know of plenty of people who teach in prestigious institutions who defend the historical reality of the life of Jesus, etc.
Of course I am debating against people who believe the Bible is a “story book” but that does not make them right. Perhaps some will see their rejection of the historical Jesus is not a historical conclusion based on patient examination of the data but, rather, an ideological bias not grounded at all in careful study and balanced thought.0 -
You didn't offer eyewitness accounts. You offered stories of eyewitness accounts from the Bible in order to prove the Bible. It's no different than offering stories of Odysseus's travels to prove Greek Mythology. The problem is what someone else said - you believe the Bible to be a reference book but you are debating against people who believe it's a story book. That's why I keep going back to mythology - to try to get you to understand that when you offer what you deem to be proof it's no different than if I tried to debate that Greek Mythology is real and showed proof by quoting the Odyssey. You would never accept that as proof and would continue to ask for something outside of that. That's what we're asking of you. Aside from eyewitnesses in the Bible the only other eyewitness accounts I know of are people who see Jesus in burned toast.
However, if God did show up in my living room or if when I die I'm shown proof of His existence I will drop to my knees, immediately admit that I was wrong, and beg forgiveness. I'll do the same if it's Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster or some space alien from another galaxy. Will you? If you die and are shown that the Christian God doesn't exist but that the real God is Zeus will you deny the Christian God and embrace Zeus?
Well, your last sentence is the best one in your reply. “Aside from witnesses in the Bible…” None of the primary source evidence is acceptable to you. You rule it out from the start. The names Matthew and John are consistently linked to the Gospels that bear their names from the earliest manuscripts that have survived to the various references to those books. Both are eyewitnesses (both are among the original 12 Apostles). You systematically discard them and look for some other evidence. The reality is that there are no other historical records by contemporaries who lived in Galilee and Jerusalem during the life of Jesus. There are polemical references to Jesus in the Jewish Talmud but those are oral traditions written down after AD 200. There are references to Jesus and the early Christians but these are from people who lived at a distance or who relied on other existing historical evidences (like Josephus).
I know of no one today who argues that Odysseus’ travels are to be taken as historical narratives (even if there are some historical features of the ancient epics). I know of plenty of people who teach in prestigious institutions who defend the historical reality of the life of Jesus, etc.
Of course I am debating against people who believe the Bible is a “story book” but that does not make them right. Perhaps some will see their rejection of the historical Jesus is not a historical conclusion based on patient examination of the data but, rather, an ideological bias not grounded at all in careful study and balanced thought.
Perfect example. There is some historical accuracy in the Iliad. There was a war and Troy was sacked. There was a Rabbi named Jesus who went against the establishment was put to death by the Romans. There are the historical nuggets in both of these texts.0 -
NT Wright was an Anglican Bishop and his works (reading a handful of academic reviews) assume that miraculous events are truth and, therefore, do not allow for proper treatment of the New Testament texts.
FF Bruce is the father of the modern Evangelical interpretations of the Bible and saw the New Testament writings as historically accurate regardless of a lack of independent verifications. How can writings be seen as valid history without independent verification?
I received my degree from Colgate University. After I left, the large majority of my PR department moved to Harvard Divinity School.
We were taught to look at documents critically and in context of the time they were written. We were also taught to avoid, as much as possible, letting our personal views taint the studies.
Please forgive me for saying so but your writings do not suggest you have a real grasp of historical methodologies and presuppositions. You draw conclusions quickly about people you have not read, something that does not typically characterize people who have been trained in scholarly research. In any case, if you read Wright you will see that your claims are simply false. Wright does not simply assume miraculous events are true. He rejects plenty of claims of miraculous events. He does not assume miraculous events are false, either. Do you? If you do, that taints your consideration of historical texts. Your world-view affects what you are “allowed” to accept as historical.
Regarding Bruce, again, you misrepresent him. Read his book on “New Testament History” or “Are the New Testament Document Reliable?” and you will see that he does not merely lay out undefended presuppositions.
Regarding your last line, it seems to me that your personal views profoundly influence the way you look at texts. You draw conclusions too quickly, something not usually associated with higher education that specialized in these areas.0 -
This thread is turning into a very miniscule version of the world. Every major conflict in history has been over religion in one form or the other.
I liked Macpatti's answers better--she had much more eloquent apologia. Still ended up in the same theological cul-de-sac, but much more creative.0 -
I liked Macpatti's answers better--she had much more eloquent apologia. Still ended up in the same theological cul-de-sac, but much more creative.
0 -
My biggest problem with religous text is that it has all been edited for content.... If the Vatican would like me to believe in their church then I want access to all of the documents in the vault under the vatican please.... Many of which contradict what the chirch teaches which is why they have been edited out........
Just to throw a fun litle loop out their didn't Buddha tell of Jesus coming something like 500 years before he was born......
I would love to see the things ommitted as well.
As for the loop there....let's say this is so. Then he propheisized about someone else, right? Or was it just a lucky guess and we can say he confused him with Ghandi. Does it say that there is more than meets the eye in the spiritual nature, or are people just really good guessers?This thread is turning into a very miniscule version of the world. Every major conflict in history has been over religion in one form or the other.
Roaddog....I have to disagree. I don't think Ghengis Khan went out to conquer China for some god, nor Alexander the Great go on a war path for a diety. I also don't think the Great War was a religous conflict nor was World War 2. I don't think EVERY major conflict in history was over religion. Korean War and most modern world conflicts. Mostly on imperialism and nationalism.0 -
NT Wright was an Anglican Bishop and his works (reading a handful of academic reviews) assume that miraculous events are truth and, therefore, do not allow for proper treatment of the New Testament texts.
FF Bruce is the father of the modern Evangelical interpretations of the Bible and saw the New Testament writings as historically accurate regardless of a lack of independent verifications. How can writings be seen as valid history without independent verification?
I received my degree from Colgate University. After I left, the large majority of my PR department moved to Harvard Divinity School.
We were taught to look at documents critically and in context of the time they were written. We were also taught to avoid, as much as possible, letting our personal views taint the studies.
Please forgive me for saying so but your writings do not suggest you have a real grasp of historical methodologies and presuppositions. You draw conclusions quickly about people you have not read, something that does not typically characterize people who have been trained in scholarly research. In any case, if you read Wright you will see that your claims are simply false. Wright does not simply assume miraculous events are true. He rejects plenty of claims of miraculous events. He does not assume miraculous events are false, either. Do you? If you do, that taints your consideration of historical texts. Your world-view affects what you are “allowed” to accept as historical.
Regarding Bruce, again, you misrepresent him. Read his book on “New Testament History” or “Are the New Testament Document Reliable?” and you will see that he does not merely lay out undefended presuppositions.
Regarding your last line, it seems to me that your personal views profoundly influence the way you look at texts. You draw conclusions too quickly, something not usually associated with higher education that specialized in these areas.
Forgive me if I seem to answer quickly but these are debates I have on a near weekly basis with my wife on our way back from her church. Also, with her brother-in-law who seems to be perpetually in school at various Evangelist Bible Colleges.
Here is a quote from Wright about his stance on the divinity of Jesus:
"Second, people have sometimes said that I downplay the divinity of Jesus (someone once accused me even of denying the virginal conception). This is a serious misunderstanding. I have done my best, rather, to oppose modern forms of Docetism (the view that Jesus wasn’t really human, but only ‘seemed’ to be). Some modern Docetists, not surprisingly, see this as a denial of Jesus’ divinity. I hope the present book, and its sequel How God Became King, will put the record straight on this one."
http://frankviola.org/2012/01/23/ntwright/
A quote from Bruce about the purpose of Biblical Critique:
"It is in these three areas—structure, date and authorship—that we have the group of studies that used to he summarized in the single term ‘higher criticism.’ Thus biblical criticism is a very positive study. Its aim is to help people to understand the Bible better."
Notice the presupposition that the text is true in both statements. These scholars' works are less about critically examining the authenticity of the texts and more about examining the theological implications of the texts. This is a completely different exercise along the lines of philosophy rather than history.
My view with miracles can best be stated with "trust but verify." This is why I always read multiple news articles on the same subject in order to avoid bias. There have been no historical verifications the divinity of Jesus. Don't you think historical writers of the day would find the fact that someone came back to life after being executed a topic that should be covered? But they do not. The only thing that they report is that there is a new movement inspired by a Rabbi named Jesus who was put to death.0 -
Wow, pissy much? I responded to one post from a previous page and you start sounding off about how many times you've asked a question? (That I answered as I got to it BTW.) How many times have you been asked to provide proof without giving your opinion or quoting the Bible? (Hint: It's a helluva lot more than 3 times.) Still waiting though.
You don't consider eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus as proof. I bet if God showed up in your living room, you'd still offer some other explanation. You willfully choose to reject God. I get that. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I have offered quite a bit on the subject supporting the existence of God.
But nothing independent. You cannot use the bible to defend the validity of the bible. Especially since the bible had been edited and certain gospels omitted and purged while others pushed to the forefront. It is obviously a biased text that has no independent verifying source.
The Bible isn't one book with one human author. The Bible is a collection of texts and letters by multiple people. The different authors and different texts do validate each other with their accounts. It isn't quite the same as saying you can't use the Illiad to prove the Illiad.0 -
It is true that both Wright and Bruce are Christians and therefore have Christian convictions. This does not disqualify them from thinking seriously about historical questions. Everyone has presuppositions that affect the way they look at these issues. We can try to shine the light of reason on our assumptions and frameworks and see how coherent, consistent and persuasive they are. I mention Wright and Bruce because I find them to be more than fair in dealing with historical questions and they are also respected in the scholarly community, from all I can tell. They have held distinguished teaching posts and have books of enduring value that continue to get much attention. With respect to our exchange, my concern is that you too quickly discard the value of the biblical sources and then set the standard of "proof" as non-Christian sources that support everything Christianity claims about Jesus. This is surely asking for too much. Regarding the deity/divinity of Jesus, there is no historical "proof" of this. One can only infer this from biblical data. One might be able to give a strong case for Jesus believing he was divine or had a unique relationship to God but what one makes of these claims is a question that lies beyond historical study.Forgive me if I seem to answer quickly but these are debates I have on a near weekly basis with my wife on our way back from her church. Also, with her brother-in-law who seems to be perpetually in school at various Evangelist Bible Colleges.
Here is a quote from Wright about his stance on the divinity of Jesus:
"Second, people have sometimes said that I downplay the divinity of Jesus (someone once accused me even of denying the virginal conception). This is a serious misunderstanding. I have done my best, rather, to oppose modern forms of Docetism (the view that Jesus wasn’t really human, but only ‘seemed’ to be). Some modern Docetists, not surprisingly, see this as a denial of Jesus’ divinity. I hope the present book, and its sequel How God Became King, will put the record straight on this one."
http://frankviola.org/2012/01/23/ntwright/
A quote from Bruce about the purpose of Biblical Critique:
"It is in these three areas—structure, date and authorship—that we have the group of studies that used to he summarized in the single term ‘higher criticism.’ Thus biblical criticism is a very positive study. Its aim is to help people to understand the Bible better."
Notice the presupposition that the text is true in both statements. These scholars' works are less about critically examining the authenticity of the texts and more about examining the theological implications of the texts. This is a completely different exercise along the lines of philosophy rather than history.
My view with miracles can best be stated with "trust but verify." This is why I always read multiple news articles on the same subject in order to avoid bias. There have been no historical verifications the divinity of Jesus. Don't you think historical writers of the day would find the fact that someone came back to life after being executed a topic that should be covered? But they do not. The only thing that they report is that there is a new movement inspired by a Rabbi named Jesus who was put to death.0 -
And there are many, many books by many many authors - some who lived during those times - with stories about the Greek Gods.Wow, pissy much? I responded to one post from a previous page and you start sounding off about how many times you've asked a question? (That I answered as I got to it BTW.) How many times have you been asked to provide proof without giving your opinion or quoting the Bible? (Hint: It's a helluva lot more than 3 times.) Still waiting though.
You don't consider eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus as proof. I bet if God showed up in your living room, you'd still offer some other explanation. You willfully choose to reject God. I get that. I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I have offered quite a bit on the subject supporting the existence of God.
But nothing independent. You cannot use the bible to defend the validity of the bible. Especially since the bible had been edited and certain gospels omitted and purged while others pushed to the forefront. It is obviously a biased text that has no independent verifying source.
The Bible isn't one book with one human author. The Bible is a collection of texts and letters by multiple people. The different authors and different texts do validate each other with their accounts. It isn't quite the same as saying you can't use the Illiad to prove the Illiad.
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist or that he wasn't a swell guy. But if I don't believe in your version of God then there can't be a son of God. Gandhi was a wonderful man. He helped a lot of people. But if he had said he was the son of Ganesha I wouldn't have believed him regardless of how many people said "Oh but he's a great guy and he told us the story of how his mother was married but still a virgin yet ended up pregnant so of course that means it's immaculate conception. What other way could someone who says she's a virgin and doesn't have sex with her husband get pregnant?"0
