Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
Instead, here's I hang my proverbial hat, for lack of a better term. God, and a benevolent and kind and powerful God, personally interested in me, seems like a better lot than "chance" or "fate" or whathaveyou. But again, not something that I can make conversation about with others, so whether "God" really exists, and cares, is not something I can push in public discourse.
|
I've given this some thought in this way as well, it would be nice to have someone on my side, someone benevolent, caring and powerful, or at least the perception of it. I played with the idea of a God who basically set off the whole thing, but having him being one who cares is not something I see, so its not a notion that I'm gonna spend any time on personally. So yea, its not really worth debating or even discussing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
But here's where I stand: did Jesus exist? Clearly he believed in God. "He trusted in God, let Him (God the Father) save him (Jesus) now". (Matt 27:43; cf Psa 22:8).
But did Jesus actually exist? Or is it all just a story, fabricated out of thin air, concocted from dreams? A historical will o'the wisp? To me, that's where the rubber meets the road. Or doesn't.
I'll answer it this way: Did Julius Caesar exist? Did George Washington? How do you know? Witnesses. Records. Accounts. Was Caesar's "Gallic Wars" a fabrication of later centuries, or a true (ish) contemporary account, i.e. a 'witness'? Did Washington really cross the Delaware river that cold icy night? We 'know' things because of the interlocking witnesses. Multiple reinforcing testimonial cross-referents, as it were. They're established, more-or-less, as 'facts' when we get enough trustworthy (verifiable) voices saying that it was so.
So with Jesus' life there are several gospels. The fact that they don't always agree strengthens the witness for me. Did Judas hang himself or burst his bowels open in the field? Can't be both. But the fact that there are disparate voices tells me that there are multiple, separate, independent witnesses. The gospels were written apart, yet still they show remarkable conformity given that. So we have multiple, convergent testimonies of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Then what of Paul? Did he exist? He writes that he knew the Twelve. And the "Acts" by Luke confirms this. Did Peter, James, John, exist? Seems to be a lot of witnessing here. Very, very hard for me to imagine that someone made all this up long after the fact. Then we have Polycarp, who says he saw John. Was he a liar, too? Or a forgery? Then we have Irenaeus, Clement... multiple witnesses, very early. Didache.. the very early documents pile up.
Something had to have happened back there, for all this to have arisen. We 'know' that there was a Jerusalem with a temple and so forth. Suddenly there are all these Christians, saying Jesus rose from the dead! True or not?
|
This I feel is one of the most historically interesting aspects of Bible scholarship, and I for one am woefully un-knowledgeable regarding the subject.
Whereas the old testament for the most part can be dissected and regarded as accurate or not using scientific study, archaeology, etc, its more of an account of Christian mythology then anything else. It sets a pretty solid foundation for the Christian worldview and understanding a lot of what exactly that entails. However from a historical perspective (at least to my very limited knowledge) suspect in its accuracy.
I believe a man named Jesus existed, and that in many circles he became a much followed and revered prophet sort of figure. And I believe the general structure and account of his life: rising as a very influential speaker, his baptism, rebuking of the general Christian establishment of the time, and death. Beyond that, and especially the supernatural and divinely related is myth and legend to me.
But that's why I kinda want to get into Biblical scholarship, if for no other reason than an intense curiosity for it. Who were the authors of the gospel, and what/who were their sources? Were the accounts of resurrection first hand, or the result of embellishment by oral retelling? Did he have any impacts in other areas of the world or was his arc an entirely isolated event at the time? And so, so much more.
As far as I've heard Asimov's Guide to the Bible is a really good place to start for some amateur scholarship, lauded by Christians, atheists and agnostics alike, so I'll see if I can get a copy of that, and if you have any extra suggestions, I'd be super interested in those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
We know the same way that we know that our new friend Nuclear is not an atheistic, Bible bashing troll, or awareness' alter-ego
-
|
I hope that what I've said isn't regarded as Bible-bashing, and I feel like immediately going to that sort of label is really counter-productive to conversation and open thought on the subject. The Bible has been undoubtedly the highest-impact collection of works on the modern history of humanity. Everything from language, scholarship, the rise and fall of empires and their belief systems has been touched by its reach. Its influence reaches to every individual that has ever been in contact with Christianity, which constitutes many, many people. Its an important work and should be treated as such. However non of this necessitates that any of it be divinely inspired, moral or true, and it is my hope that discussing the Bible in all of these aspects isn't seen as an attack on it, but rather objective analysis (to the best that any of us can be objective).