Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 13, 2007 12:58:14 GMT -4
A good point. If one accepts the gospels as accurate on Jesus' words to the apostles at the Last Supper, why don't you also accept the gospel account of Jesus alive and well after his death?
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 13, 2007 13:26:02 GMT -4
Continued from my post above:
I'd like to address the issue of objectivity. Rocky/david brought in a link to a document and insisted we read it and comment as a "test" of our objectivity. Dumb litmus test, really, since it proves nothing. I'm trying to address the disappearance of a body objectively, by which I mean without the color of emotions or pre-conceived notions.
First off, DH, you're wrong on many counts here: The historical record in scripture has never been intelligently refuted. The very existence of Jesus has been disputed. Few of the facts of his life can be corroborated, and many of the supernatural events alleged to have taken place were variations of other stories from the Egyptian gods, Zoroastrianism, and various other religions and sects in the broader middle-east area. We can discuss the details of this later.
I'm willing to accept that Yesu ben Yusuf of Nazareth really existed, and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Jewish authorities for various things we can sum up as "rabble rousing." I'm also willing to accept that his body was put into a tomb owned by a man called "Joseph of Arimathea."
After this things get murky. Yeshu had attracted a following by the time of his death, and many pre-existing prophecies were attached to him, among them that he would return from the dead.
I assert that the core members of the "jesus cult" removed the body and disposed of it, then spread the word that he had "appeared" to a select number of the inner membership.
My job is one of those "if you have time to lean, you have time to clean" sort of jobs, so I'll be back later. At that time I'll be ready to call some testimony from the 4 primary witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 13, 2007 13:41:47 GMT -4
If there was any slight hint that perhaps Christ wanted you to have eaten him after he died, would you have eaten him? I've heard that humans are best described as tasting similar to cross between snow leopard and bald eagle.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 13, 2007 13:48:28 GMT -4
Few of the facts of his life can be corroborated, and many of the supernatural events alleged to have taken place were variations of other stories from the Egyptian gods, Zoroastrianism, and various other religions and sects in the broader middle-east area. We can discuss the details of this later. Just because some of the stories of Jesus found in the gospels resemble stories present in other religions does not prove that they were variations or derived from those stories. The resemblence could be strictly coincidental, it could be due to the stories dealing with similar themes, or, if you accept the possibility of prophecy, the origin of stories of the Egyptian gods, Zoroastrianism, etc. could be distorted prophecies of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 13, 2007 15:53:27 GMT -4
Yeah, or the influence could be the other way 'round. As we keep pointing out to David, "could be" doesn't mean "is."
Thanks to those who corrected me. The goal is to learn, right?
Great heaping whops of the Bible have no confirmation outside the Bible. Now, I do choose to accept the historical validity of a figure we now call Jesus of Nazareth; I even believe he had divine inspiration. However, I think lots of people through history have had divine inspiration, including Mohammed, Buddha, Elizabeth I, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, and so on. It doesn't make me a Christian any more than I worship Elizabeth I.
But again, I do think the concept of a cannibalized Jesus is silly.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 13, 2007 21:41:30 GMT -4
Well, the comittee that undertakes the New International Version does so parse texts, though not easily at all, I would imagine. I keep meaning to learn more about the science and art of textual criticism. Anybody here familiar with it? Edited to add something of substance, rather than empty speculation: The wikipedia entry for Textual Criticism seems to be a good place for a layman to start, if he's interested in learning about the scholarship that goes into validating ancient texts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 13, 2007 23:25:10 GMT -4
Interesting note from the Wikipedia entry on Textual Criticism:
I hope soon--time permitting--to reach a point where I can discuss textual criticism and the evaluation of biblical texts in my own words.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 14, 2007 12:49:09 GMT -4
I don't have much more than a layman's understanding of textual criticism (though my degree is in English).
The main problem I have with biblical criticism is that it implicitely denies the possibility of prophecy or miracles. If a text lists a prophecy that is known to have been fulfilled, biblical critics automatically date the text to after the event.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 14, 2007 18:38:02 GMT -4
I don't have much more than a layman's understanding of textual criticism (though my degree is in English). The main problem I have with biblical criticism is that it implicitely denies the possibility of prophecy or miracles. If a text lists a prophecy that is known to have been fulfilled, biblical critics automatically date the text to after the event. Jason, when you say "biblical critics" in this context, are you referring to people who are in some sense "antagonistic" towards the bible, or are you using "critic" as a term of art in Textual Criticism?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 15, 2007 13:35:15 GMT -4
I have never eaten a human body. But I think we should not be critical of it until we have tried it.
If you believe in evolution it must not be too different from eating bush-meat which is a delicacy in Africa.
Of course it is "gross" to modern western culture. So is eating dogs and horses. But they eat dogs in Korea and they eat horses in France.
Once something is dead, it is all the same stuff. It is just a matter of cultural influences.
|
|
|
Post by gwen on Feb 15, 2007 13:49:41 GMT -4
I have never eaten a human body. But I think we should not be critical of it until we have tried it. If you believe in evolution it must not be too different from eating bush-meat which is a delicacy in Africa. Of course it is "gross" to modern western culture. So is eating dogs and horses. But they eat dogs in Korea and they eat horses in France. Once something is dead, it is all the same stuff. It is just a matter of cultural influences. The taste is widely documented... pork. I have no problem with being highly critical of the notion save for having some understanding and empathy for what can happen in the most extreme instances of isolation and starvation.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 15, 2007 14:34:47 GMT -4
Jason, when you say "biblical critics" in this context, are you referring to people who are in some sense "antagonistic" towards the bible, or are you using "critic" as a term of art in Textual Criticism? I am using it in the term of textual criticism. People who research the text of the bible and attempt to derive the original source documents, authors, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 15, 2007 15:17:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 16, 2007 13:47:35 GMT -4
I don't know anything about textual criticism, other than what I've learned by observation of people's posting style on the internet. I've come to suspect there are 3 or maybe 4 people who post conspiracy theory here using a multitude of sock puppets, but I don't have the skills to do the textual criticism metrics to figure out who is who. Nor do I particulary care - I'm here birdwatching without a fieldguide or a notebook, enjoying the weather.
I was reading a book on Evangelical Theology a few weeks ago, and the author was discussing the notion of faith and belief. He described a spiral, climbing up, of faith supporting belief, and belief supporting faith. Circular reasoning, in other words.
Just to be clear, I reject all claims of supernatural events with regard to the subject of this thread. I don't really think I can "prove" that the apostles actually ate the body of Yeshu ben Yusuf, but if it existed, it went somewhere.
Many people over the years have claimed to be or believed themselves to be in contact with god, or gods, or God. They are almost uniformly rejected, and yet western culture buys wholeheartedly into one such story from very long ago - strange.
And yet, if there's one God, and the Bible is the true and uncorrupted work of God, then I would at least expect the reports of the most significant event to be clear and consistent.
I'm using a .txt of the King James version for these quotes.
From Matthew, 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
From Mark: 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
From Luke: 23:55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 23:56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
From John: 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 20:2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the LORD out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 20:3 Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. 20:4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
So who went to the sepelchre? Two Marys? Two Marys and Salome? Several women and men? Or Mary alone?
The Pharisees were the first to suspect a hoax, in advance -
from Matthew: 27:62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. 27:64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first. 27:65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. 27:66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
Then,
28:11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. 28:12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, 28:13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. 28:14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 16, 2007 14:03:14 GMT -4
Many people over the years have claimed to be or believed themselves to be in contact with god, or gods, or God. They are almost uniformly rejected, and yet western culture buys wholeheartedly into one such story from very long ago - strange. But we're not alone in it. Muslims believe wholeheartedly in a story from only slightly less long ago. It seems to be much easier to believe in accounts of unnusual events if they are distant enough in the past and repeated often enough through history. I suspect that his has to do with the fact that as humans we have little connection with the past before we were born - we have to effectively take it on faith that things happened as those who were here before us described them. I can believe that the Bible is essentially accurate and is the word of God without also believeing that it is uncorrupted and without error. I can do this because my own faith doesn't rely solely on a particular interpretation of the Bible for its claims to validity, unlike much of protestant christianity.
|
|