Gospels are eyewitness accounts

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you figure "know[ing] ... the doctrine" is equivalent to experiencing the promised end-goal?

Which end-goal? There's more than one. Although, if I catch what Jesus means in at least the "suffering" bit that He relates to us, it seems that one of the realizations of the Christian life, even if we'd rather not seek it as a goal, is to be challenged, countered, pushed around, and dragged by all the con-artists, beligerants (both religious and anti-religious), and by various Wanna-be-God dictators.

...not that I'm in a rush to 'test' those possibilities out, mind you. It seems they come all too soon all by themselves as it is.

 

[ananda]

Which end-goal? There's more than one. Although, if I catch what Jesus means in at least the "suffering" bit that He relates to us, it seems that one of the realizations of the Christian life, even if we'd rather not seek it as a goal, is to be challenged, countered, pushed around, and dragged by all the con-artists, beligerants (both religious and anti-religious), and by various Wanna-be-God dictators.

...not that I'm in a rush to 'test' those possibilities out, mind you. It seems they come all too soon all by themselves as it is.

What do you perceive is the supreme end-goal of following Jesus/Christianity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What do you perceive is the supreme end-goal of following Jesus/Christianity?

... something along the line of what Peter or Paul the Apostles said. Although, all things considered, I can honestly say that on this side of the grave, I'm not one who is particularly thrilled about the "...and to know His sufferings" part of it.

 

[ananda]

... something along the line of what Peter or Paul the Apostles said. Although, all things considered, I can honestly say that on this side of the grave, I'm not one who is particularly thrilled about the "...and to know His sufferings" part of it.

I see. My view is that my supreme end-goal is to eliminate suffering, as it literally motivates my every action and decision in life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see. My view is that my supreme end-goal is to eliminate suffering, as it literally motivates my every action and decision in life.

While I honestly and earnestly don't wish for you or anyone else to suffer (let alone myself, of course)................good luck with that buddhistic avoidance measure. I hope it works.

 

[ananda]

While I honestly and earnestly don't wish for you or anyone else to suffer (let alone myself, of course)................good luck with that buddhistic avoidance measure. I hope it works.

The Buddhist path does not involve avoidance, but thanks, it does work.

 

[RDKirk]

I understand that. My own standards of authentication requires me to know verifiable things directly for myself, which aligns with what the Buddha taught and not the belief-based (IMO: unknowable & unverifiable) system of general Christianity.

You can't know much, then, unless your definition of "know" is very narrow and your definition of "belief" is very wide.

I haven't been to Paris, but I'll still claim to "know" the Eiffel Tower is there.

 

[RDKirk]

What do you perceive is the supreme end-goal of following Jesus/Christianity?

Not so much the end of the march as the march itself with knowledge that there is an end good.

There was a journalist during WWII embedded with General George Patton's 3rd Army during the closing months of the war.

Patton was a hard-driving general, pushing his men as hard as they could progress against a desperate enemy. War itself is hell, and Patton left no room for respite.

Yet, the journalist found Patton's troops high in morale. What Patton demanded, they gave with gusto. The journalist had never seen such high morale among troops, and he was amazed.

He asked them, "You're serving under the toughest general in the European theater. You face hardship every day. Why is your morale so high?"

They answered, "Because we believe our general is going to win this war."

 

[ananda]

You can't know much, then, unless your definition of "know" is very narrow and your definition of "belief" is very wide.

I haven't been to Paris, but I'll still claim to "know" the Eiffel Tower is there.

Yes, my definition of "know" involves personal, direct experience. I "believe" the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, but I don't know it for myself.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Jesus himself used Chiasm for example : " The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath" - so why should his disciples do otherwise. In some cases like the above this is a direct quote.

I would say that the gospel writer "Mark himself" used Chiasm. It is unclear that Jesus, if he existed, uttered those words.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

But an eyewitness account is not some sort of magical, perfect rendition frozen in time.

I'm not claiming that it is.

Here is an eyewitness account:

"I saw a man break a store window, grab a diamond necklace, and run away with it."

That might not be a "magical, perfect rendition frozen in time" (it could be recalled years after the fact), but that is an eyewitness account. It is not written as mythology.

Firsthand accounts do get distorted, memories do shift over time to fit with events that happened later.

I'm not talking about errors of memory. I'm talking about the way that something is written. People don't misremember something in Chiasmus.

Really? I don't find fullblown mythicism plausible at all.

While I don't think that either the mythicists or historicists have completely proven their case, I do find fullblown mythicism plausible, and that's even accounting for Paul. Richard Carrier has done good work on this, and he considers Paul very carefully.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, my definition of "know" involves personal, direct experience. I "believe" the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, but I don't know it for myself.

I think that it far too restrictive. I don't have any problems with scientists saying that they know that neutrinos exist, even though they have never seen them with "direct experience".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[mindlight]

Not so much the end of the march as the march itself with knowledge that there is an end good.

There was a journalist during WWII embedded with General George Patton's 3rd Army during the closing months of the war.

Patton was a hard-driving general, pushing his men as hard as they could progress against a desperate enemy. War itself is hell, and Patton left no room for respite.

Yet, the journalist found Patton's troops high in morale. What Patton demanded, they gave with gusto. The journalist had never seen such high morale among troops, and he was amazed.

He asked them, "You're serving under the toughest general in the European theater. You face hardship every day. Why is your morale so high?"

They answered, "Because we believe our general is going to win this war."

There was I thinking that "it was Monty wot won it".

 

[mindlight]

I'm not claiming that it is.

Here is an eyewitness account:

"I saw a man break a store window, grab a diamond necklace, and run away with it."

That might not be a "magical, perfect rendition frozen in time" (it could be recalled years after the fact), but that is an eyewitness account. It is not written as mythology.



I'm not talking about errors of memory. I'm talking about the way that something is written. People don't misremember something in Chiasmus.

The man broke the window to steal the diamonds. The diamonds were stolen through the window that was broken by the man. (ABCCBA)

Repetition and changing the order so it is thought about twice makes it more likely to stick in a persons head. So it is a good speaking style to use Chiasm when you want something to be memorable. Which is why Jesus used it and the disciples copied him when they wrote him up.

As you said people do not misremember something in Chiasm.

 

[mindlight]

You can't know much, then, unless your definition of "know" is very narrow and your definition of "belief" is very wide.

I haven't been to Paris, but I'll still claim to "know" the Eiffel Tower is there.

I have been there like millions others and you have heard us collectively talk about it. There are pictures all over the place. You could check it out for yourself. Probability is therefore that the Eiffel tower exists.

But someone really had to stand in front of the actual tower to say it existed. So while you are relying on heresay of a trusted set of witnesses for your belief ultimately it is based on eyewitnesses to the tower.

It is the same with Jesus. We have thousands of witnesses who were broadly trustworthy characters, who recorded what they saw in a timely fashion and whose statements so far as we can check them bear out. It would be foolish to dismiss their contention that Jesus did what was said in the gospels because there is just too much historical momentum to the claims they make about him which were accepted so readily by so many people.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not claiming that it is.

Here is an eyewitness account:

"I saw a man break a store window, grab a diamond necklace, and run away with it."

That might not be a "magical, perfect rendition frozen in time" (it could be recalled years after the fact), but that is an eyewitness account. It is not written as mythology.

But that's a very simplistic example. If the same person went around sharing the story of the robbery, it would change. It would start to take on the shape of a narrative, with rhetorical devices tossed in for effect. Even the person's memory of the event might shift to better fit the story they've built around the event at the expense of what actually happened.

This is what we do. Just listen to the way people share stories about things that they actually witnessed. Except in very artifical settings like the court of law, where people are trained to deal specifically with this problem, eyewitness accounts do turn into narratives. And this is the 21st century. It seems fairly anachronistic to expect people 2000 years ago to recount their memories of events as if they were writing a modern autobiography.

I'm not talking about errors of memory. I'm talking about the way that something is written. People don't misremember something in Chiasmus.

Again, I don't see your point. I could write a memoir in iambic pentameter if I were so inclined. If I came from a culture that used chiastic structure as a common literary device, I would probably incorporate it into my presentation of a story, even one I personally witnessed.

While I don't think that either the mythicists or historicists have completely proven their case, I do find fullblown mythicism plausible, and that's even accounting for Paul. Richard Carrier has done good work on this, and he considers Paul very carefully.

Eh, I've seen no evidence that Richard Carrier has the reading comprehension skills and commitment to neutrality necessary to interpret a text in English, much less Koine Greek. A word of warning: citing Carrier as an authority in biblical scholarship is a lot like citing Michael Behe as an authority in evolutionary biology.

 

[ananda]

I think that it far too restrictive. I don't have any problems with scientists saying that they know that neutrinos exist, even though they have never seen them with "direct experience".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Well, doesn't that goes back to what I wrote here, that "different people hold different standards when it comes to authenticating things"?

 

[ananda]

I have been there like millions others and you have heard us collectively talk about it. There are pictures all over the place. You could check it out for yourself. Probability is therefore that the Eiffel tower exists.

But someone really had to stand in front of the actual tower to say it existed. So while you are relying on heresay of a trusted set of witnesses for your belief ultimately it is based on eyewitnesses to the tower.

It is the same with Jesus. We have thousands of witnesses who were broadly trustworthy characters, who recorded what they saw in a timely fashion and whose statements so far as we can check them bear out. It would be foolish to dismiss their contention that Jesus did what was said in the gospels because there is just too much historical momentum to the claims they make about him which were accepted so readily by so many people.

I see it a bit differently: we have hearsay from translators who read hearsay from copies of texts, texts which was selected by certain elders to the exclusion of other elders and other texts, texts which are copies of other copies, copies which may or may not be accurate to the original, the writer of whom heard it hearsay from others who received hearsay from "thousands of [alleged] witnesses".

 

[RDKirk]

I see it a bit differently: we have hearsay from translators who read hearsay from copies of texts, texts which was selected by certain elders to the exclusion of other elders and other texts, texts which are copies of other copies, copies which may or may not be accurate to the original, the writer of whom heard it hearsay from others who received hearsay from "thousands of [alleged] witnesses".

And as ancient documentation goes, it's better than nearly anything else. If historians determined that the gospels were invalid for any of those reasons, they'd be out of a job. There would be no ancient history.

 

[ananda]

And as ancient documentation goes, it's better than nearly anything else. If historians determined that the gospels were invalid for any of those reasons, they'd be out of a job. There would be no ancient history.

I suppose I expect much, much more than just "better than"!