Changing beliefs

[AV1611VET]

Used to be an Atheist, and now I'm a Muslim.

Used to be an American Baptist, and now I'm an independent fundamental Baptist.

 

[Michael]

I am not only not tossing out the historical method, I am relying upon it, in regards to Jesus.

Which group of historians tossed out everything ever attributed to Jesus?

Now, we can read from conservative, moderate and liberal NT historians regarding their take on the NT and they have varied opinions, but at the end of the day, not much is agreed upon about Jesus with a high degree of confidence.

Says who? The book Honest to Jesus demonstrates that quite a few Biblical scholars *could* (and did) agree to a whole bunch of 'authenticated' materials that they agreed were likely from the lips of Jesus.

When the historical method is applied the strictest, the less credible the NT becomes, which is why so many evangelical scholars and historians do the gymnastics they do, to give their opinion.

And you're not doing any personal gymnastics when trying to discredit *all* the texts attributed to Jesus the man?

Probably not unlike, those in science, who you claim stick to a theory, with evidence against it.

The difference here is that the texts do actually exist and they can be studied by people from all walks of life, with varying viewpoints. Even if you could hope to find 'evidence against' some parts of the four gospels, how would you *ever* falsify them all? What do you intend to do with the Gospel of Thomas? Just ignore it?

 

[bhsmte]

Which group of historians tossed out everything ever attributed to Jesus?



Says who? The book Honest to Jesus demonstrates that quite a few Biblical scholars *could* (and did) agree to a whole bunch of 'authenticated' materials that they agreed were likely from the lips of Jesus.



And you're not doing any personal gymnastics when trying to discredit *all* the texts attributed to Jesus the man?



The difference here is that the texts do actually exist and they can be studied by people from all walks of life, with varying viewpoints. Even if you could hope to find 'evidence against' some parts of the four gospels, how would you *ever* falsify them all? What do you intend to do with the Gospel of Thomas? Just ignore it?

When did I say I was throwing out all the texts that discuss Jesus? I stated; when the historical method is applied objectively, much of what the gospels attributed to Jesus, can not be relied upon as historical and historians can only agree on the following in regards to having a high degree of confidence they occurred, from a historical perspective:

1. Jesus was a real person
2. Jesus was baptized
3. Jesus had followers
4. Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the opinions are all over the place. If one wants to believe in how the gospels portray Jesus, I have no problem with them doing so on faith, but they can not state the historical method has substantiated all the claims.

It seems Michael, you have a double standard in regards to your critique of certain scientific opinions, which you state are in place because of personal prejudice (and they may be), but can't see this same phenomenon impacting various opinions on the historical credibility of how the gospels portray Jesus.

This is one of my hang ups with some Christians (especially YEC's), they will deny boatloads of evidence and hang there hat on any tidbit to distrust scientific evidence that goes against their claim, but when anyone applies any objectivity to the credibility of the NT, they completely wig out and all of a sudden, critique is not allowed.

You are not taking it to this level, but I don't think your standard is the same in looking at certain parts of science in a critical way, vs looking at the NT in the same critical light.

Lets just say, the distrust or skepticism you display for certain parts of science, is similar to the same skepticism I have for the credibility of the NT.

 

[selfinflikted]

Very well ... we'll see.

In tripartitism, man is made up of body, soul, and spirit.

The soul, where the imagination comes from ...

Proverbs 6:18a An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,

... is the seat of the mind, the will, and the emotions.

The spirit is a separate part of man's makeup.

Ok. I suppose if I subscribed to "tripartitism" then I would accept that.

That's all I was asking for. See? Now I'm satisfied.

The only thing I'd ask now is how do you know that the spirit and soul aren't part of your imagination (mind)?

 

[Michael]

When did I say I was throwing out all the texts that discuss Jesus? I stated; when the historical method is applied objectively,

When and by whom? Please cite an *example* for me.

much of what the gospels attributed to Jesus, can not be relied upon as historical

The term 'much' tends to get subjective. Much of it *can* be relied upon as historical as well.

and historians can only agree on the following in regards to having a high degree of confidence they occurred, from a historical perspective:

1. Jesus was a real person
2. Jesus was baptized
3. Jesus had followers
4. Jesus was crucified

I cited at least one example of historians agreeing to more than that, including agreeing to specific texts that probably did come from his lips.

Beyond that, the opinions are all over the place.

The opinions of Biblical Scholars or atheists, or both?

If one wants to believe in how the gospels portray Jesus, I have no problem with them doing so on faith, but they can not state the historical method has substantiated all the claims.

I cited one example for you of study that went a lot further than you claimed they could. They actually attempted to distill a picture of 'Jesus the man' as separate from the texts and legends that likely didn't depict him well.

It seems Michael, you have a double standard in regards to your critique of certain scientific opinions, which you state are in place because of personal prejudice (and they may be), but can't see this same phenomenon impacting various opinions on the historical credibility of how the gospels portray Jesus.

I'm not adverse to a *real* or *published* critique, but so far all I've seen are your own personal opinions on the topic. You'll need to cite a group, a paper, a *something* with substance for me to comment on it.

This is one of my hang ups with some Christians (especially YEC's), they will deny boatloads of evidence and hang there hat on any tidbit to distrust scientific evidence that goes against their claim, but when anyone applies any objectivity to the credibility of the NT, they completely wig out and all of a sudden, critique is not allowed.

Wait a minute. I have no problem with someone critiquing the NT, the OT or the Qu'ran. That hardly implies that A) I'm obligated to agree with them, or B) I can comment on their work intelligently without reading it first. You're being too "vague" for me to make any actually comments about any specific critique.

You are not taking it to this level, but I don't think your standard is the same in looking at certain parts of science in a critical way, vs looking at the NT in the same critical light.

But I *am* willing to do that, I have done so, and I've even cited a reference for you that did exactly that. You haven't actually afforded me the same courtesy of even supplying me with any independent study by any Biblical Scholars. All I've seen so far are your *personal opinions* presented as 'fact'.

I fully realize and appreciate the fact that not every word of the four gospels may be accurate as written. I'm simply noting that at least one group of Biblical scholars *could* agree on which texts were likely to be authentic even by *their more stringent standards of evidence*.

Lets just say, the distrust or skepticism you display for certain parts of science, is similar to the same skepticism I have for the credibility of the NT.

The difference is that I can cite actual experimental scientific data like those LHC and LUX results which undermine their credibility. Do you have such material as it relates to the credibility of the four gospels, and/or the Gospel of Thomas? I will read it and comment on it if you like.

I think you just need to provide me with some *external* (to yourself) references that support your claims. Without them, I'm really not sure how to even respond meaningfully to your claims.

 

[Michael]

The only thing I'd ask now is how do you know that the spirit and soul aren't part of your imagination (mind)?

Well, for starters the Holy Spirit isn't limited to interacting with him personally, and there's actually more empirical laboratory support for "soul' at the moment than there is for exotic matter theories:

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness -- ScienceDaily
Scientists offer quantum theory of soul's existence | News.com.au

 

[bhsmte]

When and by whom? Please cite an *example* for me.



The term 'much' tends to get subjective. Much of it *can* be relied upon as historical as well.



I cited at least one example of historians agreeing to more than that, including agreeing to specific texts that probably did come from his lips.



The opinions of Biblical Scholars or atheists, or both?



I cited one example for you of study that went a lot further than you claimed they could. They actually attempted to distill a picture of 'Jesus the man' as separate from the texts and legends that likely didn't depict him well.



I'm not adverse to a *real* or *published* critique, but so far all I've seen are your own personal opinions on the topic. You'll need to cite a group, a paper, a *something* with substance for me to comment on it.



Wait a minute. I have no problem with someone critiquing the NT, the OT or the Qu'ran. That hardly implies that A) I'm obligated to agree with them, or B) I can comment on their work intelligently without reading it first. You're being too "vague" for me to make any actually comments about any specific critique.



But I *am* willing to do that, I have done so, and I've even cited a reference for you that did exactly that. You haven't actually afforded me the same courtesy of even supplying me with any independent study by any Biblical Scholars. All I've seen so far are your *personal opinions* presented as 'fact'.

I fully realize and appreciate the fact that not every word of the four gospels may be accurate as written. I'm simply noting that at least one group of Biblical scholars *could* agree on which texts were likely to be authentic even by *their more stringent standards of evidence*.



The difference is that I can cite actual experimental scientific data like those LHC and LUX results which undermine their credibility. Do you have such material as it relates to the credibility of the four gospels, and/or the Gospel of Thomas? I will read it and comment on it if you like.

I think you just need to provide me with some *external* (to yourself) references that support your claims. Without them, I'm really not sure how to even respond meaningfully to your claims.

And Michael, if you have yet to discover evidence that calls into question the historical credibility of the NT, you haven't looked very hard, because many NT historians have. You can disagree with it, no problem.

I have posted on this board many times, the take of established NT historians and scholars, regarding issues with NT historical credibility and they are not hard to find by a simple google. And no, I am not talking about atheists, I am talking about established, well schooled NT historians with impeccable credentials.

And indeed, their is bias amongst these individuals, both in favor of NT historical credibility and those who seriously question historical credibility. The trick is, to examine their reasoning and evidence for their opinion and try as best you can, to see who is following the most logic, in how they reach their opinions.

 

[Michael]

And Michael, if you have yet to discover evidence that calls into question the historical credibility of the NT, you haven't looked very hard, because many NT historians have.

It's not like I haven't read a lot of it, but as I said, I'm not *immediately* obligated to agree with all of it either.

You can disagree with it, no problem.

Likewise you can disagree, but a lot of Biblical scholars have agreed on texts that are likely to be authentic from a historical perspective. That's all I'm noting.

I have posted on this board many times, the take of established NT historians and scholars, regarding issues with NT historical credibility and they are not hard to find by a simple google. And no, I am not talking about atheists, I am talking about established, well schooled NT historians with impeccable credentials.

So what? Lots of people say lots of things about string theory too. I never doubted that for an instant. There are still people that have looked at it, and have found 'authentic texts' from a historical figure we associate with "Jesus".

And indeed, their is bias amongst these individuals, both in favor of NT historical credibility and those who seriously question historical credibility. The trick is, to examine their reasoning and evidence for their opinion and try as best you can, to see who is following the most logic, in how they reach their opinions.

True. I honestly wasn't even all that impressed by the methods that were used in the Jesus seminar, but I do think they did a pretty good job distilling the 'man' and his sense of morality from the historical texts. They made some of the very same 'assumptions' however at literacy rates among male Jews of the time, but overall I liked the book even if I didn't buy all their methodologies.

My point however is that there are historians that do agree on actual texts that probably were quotes from Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only thing I'd ask now is how do you know that the spirit and soul aren't part of your imagination (mind)?

That's where the Bible comes in.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Of the four passages, we use the Thessalonians one, as it simplifies the terminology.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's where the Bible comes in.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Of the four passages, we use the Thessalonians one, as it simplifies the terminology.

Does a soul, then, actually remember? Do the experiences of life persist after death? Because if they don't, then why be comforted by an afterlife, when all that you were still dies?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does a soul, then, actually remember? Do the experiences of life persist after death? Because if they don't, then why be comforted by an afterlife, when all that you were still dies?

... What?

 

[PsychoSarah]

... What?

Exactly. Where is it in the bible that states that who you are as a person in any way shape or form is preserved? If it doesn't, then even by biblical standards who you are and your experiences are erased when you die.

 

[TheBear]

Used to be an Atheist, and now I'm a Muslim.

Used to be an American Baptist, and now I'm an independent fundamental Baptist.

Can I ask you something, AV? Why did you feel it necessary to direct your remarks to a specific poster? Was it a knee-jerk reaction when you saw "Muslim"? If not that, then what was your reasoning?

 

[Michael]

Does a soul, then, actually remember?

Typically that's the assumption.

Do the experiences of life persist after death?

Possibly.

 

[Michael]

Can I ask you something, AV? Why did you feel it necessary to direct your remarks to a specific poster? Was it a knee-jerk reaction when you saw "Muslim"? If not that, then what was your reasoning?

I often ask various questions of Atheists that I wouldn't bother asking of a Muslim and visa versa. Is that a sin or something?

 

[bhsmte]

It's not like I haven't read a lot of it, but as I said, I'm not *immediately* obligated to agree with all of it either.



Likewise you can disagree, but a lot of Biblical scholars have agreed on texts that are likely to be authentic from a historical perspective. That's all I'm noting.

So what? Lots of people say lots of things about string theory too. I never doubted that for an instant. There are still people that have looked at it, and have found 'authentic texts' from a historical figure we associate with "Jesus".

True. I honestly wasn't even all that impressed by the methods that were used in the Jesus seminar, but I do think they did a pretty good job distilling the 'man' and his sense of morality from the historical texts. They made some of the very same 'assumptions' however at literacy rates among male Jews of the time, but overall I liked the book even if I didn't buy all their methodologies.

My point however is that there are historians that do agree on actual texts that probably were quotes from Jesus.

We have been back and forth on this before, but will finish with this; Yes, there are historians/scholars who do state a good portion of the NT is historically accurate, no question about it. There are also a good amount that will say; there are portions of the NT that have historically accurate information, but much of it can not be deemed as credible with the historical method. These same folks will also state, the NT is to them more of a work of theology, than it is an accurate portray of history.

Lastly, you claim there is bias in how some scientists view information and form opinions and I would agree, that is likely the case. In regards to the NT, when you consider, the vast majority of NT scholars and historians are indeed Christian, one could conclude they have ample motivation to be bias in how they view the NT and indeed, I believe they are quite bias.

Again, you have an issue with a part of science based on what you have found in evidence and your opinion and, I have an issue with NT credibility based on the evidence certain historians have pointed out and my opinion of that evidence as it pertains to NT credibility.

 

[Michael]

We have been back and forth on this before, but will finish with this; Yes, there are historians/scholars who do state a good portion of the NT is historically accurate, no question about it.

That was really the only point I was trying to make.

There are also a good amount that will say; there are portions of the NT that have historically accurate information, but much of it can not be deemed as credible with the historical method.

That's fine by me too.

These same folks will also state, the NT is to them more of a work of theology, than it is an accurate portray of history.

Sure. Pretty much *every* historical presentation of events will include cultural biases, scientific inaccuracies, etc. That doesn't mean I have to throw out he baby with the bathwater. I simply have to note the source.

Lastly, you claim there is bias in how some scientists view information and form opinions and I would agree, that is likely the case. In regards to the NT, when you consider, the vast majority of NT scholars and historians are indeed Christian, one could conclude they have ample motivation to be bias in how they view the NT and indeed, I believe they are quite bias.

Alright, I might even buy that idea, but it only leads to the question of "why?". Why are they drawn to study that one book, those few gospels and that one man?

Again, you have an issue with a part of science based on what you have found in evidence and your opinion and, I have an issue with NT credibility based on the evidence certain historians have pointed out and my opinion of that evidence as it pertains to NT credibility.

There are people who try to claim that every word in the entire Bible is correct. Likewise there are extremest at the other end of the spectrum that would deny it's worth entirely, historically, archeologically, etc. I am at neither end of that extreme position.

All I was trying to convey here is that from the standpoint of archeology and history, there is value in these accounts. I was also trying to point out the tentative and subjective nature of "evidence". We all wear our own individual shade of rose colored glasses. It's part of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. Where is it in the bible that states that who you are as a person in any way shape or form is preserved? If it doesn't, then even by biblical standards who you are and your experiences are erased when you die.

You're getting into deep eschatology here.

I'm under the impression we are given new bodies, and some of our former memories will pass away.

I'm not sure.

Eschatology isn't one of my strong points -- creationism is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can I ask you something, AV? Why did you feel it necessary to direct your remarks to a specific poster? Was it a knee-jerk reaction when you saw "Muslim"? If not that, then what was your reasoning?

I just did it for the attention.

Is that okay with you?

 

[Michael]

I just did it for the attention.

Is that okay with you?

LOL!