Author Topic: Did Jesus practice what he preached?  (Read 1440 times)

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2019, 06:06:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is why the Jesus Seminar attempted to tease out the "true" parts using a consistent technique.  The results were controversial.  John Dominic Crossan tried his own technique, though he was also a member of the Jesus Seminar...

I should point out that the methods real-Jesus apologists employ to "tease out the truth" have never been demonstrated to be effective at letting us know what is history and what is baloney. See Richard Carrier's Proving History for good critiques of those criteria of authenticity.

Quote
Modern scholarship would claim "community" rather than "individual".  The Johannine writings are clearly different, so it is believed that they were a completely different group from that of Mark for example.

It's good to hear that some scholarship regarding the origins of Christianity is starting to make sense. The contradictory doctrines attributed to Jesus are difficult to explain if we assume they originated in one guy, but they are easy to explain if we see them as the result of a group effort.

At this point many real-Jesus apologists might scream: "That's a conspiracy theory!" They can call it anything they want, but they can't accurately say they have a theory that is more probable.

Finally, I don't see any of this evidence as making the historicity of Jesus necessarily improbable. It just shows that we really don't need a Jesus to explain the evidence. We only need a Jesus to help people believe they have a ticket to heaven.

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2019, 07:06:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't see consistency as the same issue.  Would a perfectly logical Vulcan be ipso facto … the Messiah?
I see your point.  It is not uncommon for people to change their minds on issues as one ages.  I have changed my outlook on many issues over the years and probably will change even more.  But then, I am not god who can see all that was and all that will be.  There is no reason for such a being to change anything about his instructions for they should have been perfect when they were issued.  But then Jesus is a fiction and therefore reflects common people changes in thoughts--because he is a committee construct and is clearly a fiction.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2019, 08:20:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, people who use the eyewitness analogy don't understand how that works. If the Gospel writers (if we even knew who they were) were gathered up, separated into different rooms, and were asked to provide their accounts independently, then maybe you could use that analogy. However, when chronologically later Gospels quote earlier ones verbatim, then it becomes obvious what is really going on. They weren't eyewitness providing their own versions of events by memory. They were taking already existing texts and adding and taking away from it. Contradictions between Gospel books were not accidental, but the result of one author disagreeing with another and "correcting" them as they pleased

In other words, the accounts we have of Jesus are not independent but resulted from Christians "borrowing" ideas from each other. It seems odd how "professional" scholars tell us that these accounts are independent.

Offline Baruch

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2019, 05:34:25 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think the gospel writers ever expected their work to be gathered into one book, as if they were merely chapters in a longer literary effort. I doubt that Mark's gospel, at least, was intended to be considered as literally historical, either. His gospel is a lot like the writings of Homer, as though it was intended to be a theatrical performance.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Paul in his letters somewhere … says he demonstrated the truth of his message to the gathered people.  This would have been a passion play (as later shown in Medieval European cathedrals).  The story of Hercules (aka Baal) of Tarsus, was a local mystery cult in Tarsus that Paul would have been familiar with.  We don't know Paul's full message.  And he never expected his letters to be gathered, edited and grouped … to be read 2000 years later.   To him the world would end, shortly after he was executed in Rome.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 05:44:06 PM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Baruch

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2019, 05:36:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't think the gospel writers ever expected their work to be gathered into one book, as if they were merely chapters in a longer literary effort. I doubt that Mark's gospel, at least, was intended to be considered as literally historical, either. His gospel is a lot like the writings of Homer, as though it was intended to be a theatrical performance.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The Jews who wrote the NT writings, were Hellenistic.  They were both Jewish and Greek literate.  The Homeric Epics were the Greek Pagan Bible.  The Greeks invented theater, and the Romans absorbed that practice.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Baruch

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2019, 05:39:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I see your point.  It is not uncommon for people to change their minds on issues as one ages.  I have changed my outlook on many issues over the years and probably will change even more.  But then, I am not god who can see all that was and all that will be.  There is no reason for such a being to change anything about his instructions for they should have been perfect when they were issued.  But then Jesus is a fiction and therefore reflects common people changes in thoughts--because he is a committee construct and is clearly a fiction.

In Greek philosophy (and later Christian theology) Christianity is perfect.  But that POV is perfect BS from the Jewish side.  We find perfection in imperfection.  As Mozart used to say about classical music that had no "life" to it … it shit marble.

Christian theology has been Jewish-ignorant and Jewish-hostile from the beginning, even with genuine Paul.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Baruch

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2019, 05:43:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In other words, the accounts we have of Jesus are not independent but resulted from Christians "borrowing" ideas from each other. It seems odd how "professional" scholars tell us that these accounts are independent.

Apologists claim that.  But they aren't professional scholars.  Professional scholars are theologically and historically neutral.  Theologians can't do that.

The Synoptic Gospels are clearly dependent, starting with Mark.  The Gospel of John is clearly independent, but ties in with Paul.  There were many other Gospels, Acts etc.  Scholars deny it, but Mark is clearly dependent on the Gospel of Thomas.

In my own original research, I reverse engineered the Jesus Seminar results and the independent results of Crossan.  There are two parts, the "life" and the "testimony".  There is no evidence that the "life" has any confirmation.  The "testimony" renders down to the core of the Gospel of Thomas.  The Gospel of Thomas was initially written in Greek, had additional aphorisms added, and eventually translated to Coptic … to the form we have now.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 05:52:09 PM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2019, 05:55:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
In other words, the accounts we have of Jesus are not independent but resulted from Christians "borrowing" ideas from each other. It seems odd how "professional" scholars tell us that these accounts are independent.
Apologists claim that.  But they aren't professional scholars.  Professional scholars are theologically and historically neutral.  Theologians can't do that.

I must disagree. Many scholars are Christians especially liberal Christians, and they are not "theologically and historically neutral." Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman claim that we have independent accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. Ehrman claims to be a historian, but he has no formal training in history. So he seems to have a pro-real-Jesus bias and often argues like an apologist.

So the moral of the story is to not put too much faith in Bible scholars.

Offline Baruch

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2019, 06:10:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Apologists claim that.  But they aren't professional scholars.  Professional scholars are theologically and historically neutral.  Theologians can't do that.

I must disagree. Many scholars are Christians especially liberal Christians, and they are not "theologically and historically neutral." Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman claim that we have independent accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. Ehrman claims to be a historian, but he has no formal training in history. So he seems to have a pro-real-Jesus bias and often argues like an apologist.

So the moral of the story is to not put too much faith in Bible scholars.

Professional = neutral … in my language.  Doesn't imply that they are stupid or incompetent.  Please watch this ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I don't have the degrees of Dr Carrier etc ... but I know as much about this subject as they do.  My study of Hebrew, Greek, Ugaritic, Babylonian, Egyptian, Latin and ... Sumerian confirm it.

A good Jewish rabbi can out argue just about anyone.  And I know more than they do, because I am neutral and they can't be.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2019, 10:40:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I must disagree. Many scholars are Christians especially liberal Christians, and they are not "theologically and historically neutral." Even agnostics like Bart Ehrman claim that we have independent accounts of Jesus in the New Testament. Ehrman claims to be a historian, but he has no formal training in history. So he seems to have a pro-real-Jesus bias and often argues like an apologist.

So the moral of the story is to not put too much faith in Bible scholars.

Agree 100%. I've read or listened to on audiobook all of Ehrman's books. He makes compelling arguments in every one of is books with the conspicuous exception of "Did Jesus Exist."

I've read a lot of really, really bad arguments against the historicity of Jesus, but there are a few good ones. Ehrman claimed that he could settle the matter once and for all in that book. When he got to the punch lines of his arguments, I recall distinctly thinking, "That's it!!!???" every time. The entire book was comprehensively unpersuasive. Ehrman grew up as a fundamentalist, has no scientific training, and seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting ambiguity.

As far as Christian scholars, even ones who have lapsed away from Christianity being not neutral, also agree 100%. When a known huckster in Israel tampered with an ancient ossuary to increase its value claiming it was the ossuary of James the brother of Jesus, Christian scholars were falling all over themselves to authenticate it. His forgery was laughable and easily spotted. This is one example of many forgeries Christian scholars lined up to authenticate.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Offline Hydra009

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #25 on: August 04, 2019, 10:52:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They weren't eyewitness providing their own versions of events by memory. They were taking already existing texts and adding and taking away from it.
Funny thing is, there's a bible verse which condemns adding or taking away from to these sacred texts - a pretty strong hint that that was exactly what was going on.

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #26 on: August 04, 2019, 10:53:30 PM »
There is not a single event in the gospels that can be verified outside the gospels. There is no documentation, no list of credits, no sources mentioned in the gospels. and Mark, which most historians believed to be the first account, was written after the first Jewish-Roman war, 66-73 CE, some 40 years after the alleged events that are supposed to have taken place.

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2019, 09:51:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is not a single event in the gospels that can be verified outside the gospels. There is no documentation, no list of credits, no sources mentioned in the gospels. and Mark, which most historians believed to be the first account, was written after the first Jewish-Roman war, 66-73 CE, some 40 years after the alleged events that are supposed to have taken place.
Plus--there is not a single writer or historian that mentioned Jesus in the life time of this supposed real life character called Jesus.  At best, this is quite odd--and for me it is one of the facts surrounding 'Jesus' that proves to me he is a fiction.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2019, 09:56:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agree 100%. I've read or listened to on audiobook all of Ehrman's books. He makes compelling arguments in every one of is books with the conspicuous exception of "Did Jesus Exist."

As far as Ehrman's books are concerned, I've only read Did Jesus Exist? That was enough of Ehrman for me. I found it to be poorly argued, and even libelous in some ways making false accusations against DM Murdock. I suppose few people doubted the historicity of Jesus until "historians" like Ehrman tried to prove it.

Quote
I've read a lot of really, really bad arguments against the historicity of Jesus, but there are a few good ones.

The quality of mythicist arguments does vary.

Anyway, since I'm unsure if Jesus existed, I don't argue against his historicity. I let people like Robert Price and Richard Carrier argue that Jesus didn't exist. What I do argue against is the sloppy scholarship of those who claim to be able to make a good case for the existence of Jesus. Ehrman, for example, argues that Jesus existed because he had a brother!

Quote
Ehrman grew up as a fundamentalist, has no scientific training, and seems to have a great deal of difficulty accepting ambiguity.

I'd recommend you read Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? if you haven't done so already. "The empire strikes back" as the mythicists respond to what Ehrman says about them and their work. What's said about Ehrman is very revealing.

Quote
As far as Christian scholars, even ones who have lapsed away from Christianity being not neutral, also agree 100%.

Christian apologists eat up anything said by atheists and agnostics that favors Christian beliefs. The logic of apologists is that since scholars like Ehrman are atheists, then they could have no pro-Christian bias. I'm not so sure. As you say Ehrman grew up as a Christian, but more than that he was educated in a Bible school, Wheaton College. Ehrman may have never shed some of those Christian biases.

Quote
When a known huckster in Israel tampered with an ancient ossuary to increase its value claiming it was the ossuary of James the brother of Jesus, Christian scholars were falling all over themselves to authenticate it. His forgery was laughable and easily spotted. This is one example of many forgeries Christian scholars lined up to authenticate.

Forgeries "proving" the existence of Jesus are legion. Although such forgeries do not demonstrate that Jesus did not exist, they do demonstrate the desperation many people feel to find substantial evidence for Jesus. If we already had very good evidence that Jesus existed, then I'm wondering why Bible scholars want so badly to find evidence for him.

To conclude, allow me to quote the opening paragraph from Bart Ehrman's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world β€” the Christian church β€” was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today β€” is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

That's not biased?

Re: Did Jesus practice what he preached?
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2019, 09:59:04 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Plus--there is not a single writer or historian that mentioned Jesus in the life time of this supposed real life character called Jesus.  At best, this is quite odd--and for me it is one of the facts surrounding 'Jesus' that proves to me he is a fiction.
Add to that we don't have the original text. What we have are copies from scribes, done over and over, often with mistakes, insertions and deletions. And what beats it all, it was written in Greek, not in Aramaic, Jesus' supposed language.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk