Edward Feser has a blog post up that is highly relevant to much of the debate that takes place here at The Skeptical Zone between theists and non-theists.
Lazy shouts of “unfalisfiability!” against theological claims just ignore all this complexity — the distinctions that have to be drawn between empirical claims on the one hand and claims of mathematics, logic, and metaphysics on the other; between extremely general empirical claims and more specific ones; between philosophy of nature (which studies the philosophical presuppositions of natural science) and natural science itself; and between the testing of a thesis and the testing of the auxiliary assumptions we generally take for granted but conjoin with the thesis when drawing predictions from it.
So, falsificationism is a rather feeble instrument to wield against theology. And in fact, atheist philosophers have known this for decades, even if New Atheist combox commandos are still catching up.
quote:
We should therefore, expect to find in the imagination of great Pagan teachers and myth makers some glimpse of that theme which we believe to be the very plot of the whole cosmic story—the theme of incarnation, death, and rebirth… It is not the difference between falsehood and truth. It is the difference between a real event on the one hand and dim dreams or premonitions on the other.
end quote:
CS Lewis
There is a big difference between being prepared to give a defense and being obligated to do so.
Then there is Proverbs 26:4
peace
Also the difference between an original an a copy.
I am as well. In “How Jesus Became God”, he points out something which was very interesting to me. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells the Apostles that they will sit on 12 thrones in judgment of the 12 tribes. However, since this is empirically falsifiable and obviously did not come to pass, it would be an odd thing for Matthew to have concocted with no basis. Given the unrest which sometimes accompanied the gathering in Jerusalem for Passover (which was, after all, to celebrate their escape from Egyptian bondage), a preacher with any following making Messianic claims could have provoked Roman authorities keen on maintaining order. Fascinating theory.
That’s cute. By that reasoning you can be as prepared as you want but never actually bother to do the defending. I’m prepared to defend it, I just don’t have to.
LOL.
And 26:5
LOL. And this shit is supposed to be the words of an ominpotent omniscient being?
And you personally decide who is a fool of course. I’m guessing the criterion is: Somebody I can’t be bothered defending the faith to. Just call them a fool and then pretend you’ve done your duty. 3:7 Though, don’t forget that one. Are you wise, or a fool? Hmmm.
But hey, when we’re at Proverbs 26, take a look at 10 and 12. You can just pick and choose the ones you like (you know, like you just did).
The difference, perhaps, between a Boy Scout and a good Samaritan.
because…
Are you changing your mind?
Hey, Tom.
I read some of Ehrman’s work a few years ago. I think I’ll get his latest.
My objection isn’t to the possibility that there was an historic Jesus, but primarily to your earlier phrasing:
I don’t think there is “no doubt”.
Without contemporary evidence, it’s possible that the associations with pagan traditions accreted around Paul’s non-physical Christ.
It’s certainly possible (I don’t know enough about biblical scholarship to know if it’s probable), but I think there is room for doubt. I’ll see if his most recent book changes my view.
Patrick, do you believe there was an early Christian schism over whether or not Jesus actually came in the flesh and that the Fathers who determined the canon included both views in the canon in spite of the obvious contradiction?
Why are you so afraid of honest intellectual engagement? Why this vacuous quasi-trolling instead?
I don’t see an explicit contradiction on that topic (although there are of course many other contradictions in the Christian bible). Paul’s lack of reference to a living, historical Jesus is suggestive, but not definitive. Do you see a contradiction?
I’m waiting for an intellectually honest person to engage with. Else it’s just a huge time sink for naught.
I don’t see a contradiction in the NT about whether Jesus came in the flesh.
Why the waffling? If Paul’s Christ is non-physical, as you say, then there is a contradiction on the matter in the New Testament. Don’t you agree? But now you seem to be backing off that claim.
By the way, I’d like to know where you get this stuff. Paul’s lack of reference to a living historical Jesus? Really?
It’s not the first time I’ve read about it, but this article covers it well:
The seven genuine letters of St. Paul, older than the oldest Gospel and written by the single most important missionary in Christian history, add up to about 20,000 words. The letters mention Jesus, by name or title, over 300 times, but none of them say anything about his life; nothing about his ministry, his trial, his miracles, his sufferings. Paul never uses an example from Jesus’s sayings or deeds to illustrate a point or add gravitas to his advice—and the epistles are all about how to establish, govern and adjudicate disputes within Christianity’s nascent churches. And, despite knowing the apostles Peter, James and John, he never settles a dispute by saying, “Peter, who was there at the time, told me Jesus said this . . . ” Nor, by the evidence of his correspondence, did any faraway Christian ever ask Paul about Jesus’s life. Everything the Apostle claims to know about Jesus comes from his reading of the hidden messages in Old Testament passages and by direct revelation, the latter being the very thing that proves its worth, as he told the Galatians.
Hi Patrick
But as I understand it, Paul’s authentic letters do make reference to meeting the apostles in Jerusalem and confronting Peter in Antioch as do different references in the NT.
I think that makes the Mythologist’s non-physical thesis untenable.
That also puts Paul in an unflattering light – a supposed Christian expounding on something he really does not know very much about… not that we have ever witnessed that ever.
No you aren’t and with that answer you’re just continuing the trolling.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures…
– 1 Cor. 15:3
Upon the non-physical Jesus hypothesis, either it was someone else that died, or it was a non-physical Christ who died.
…that he was buried…
– 1 Cor. 15:4
They buried a non-physical body, I guess.
No we are told who the fool is
Psalms 14:1
No what I did is called exegesis.
You might give it a try the next time you are tempted to proof text as you did with 1st Peter 3:14.
😉
peace
quote:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,
(Gal 4:4)
and
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
(Php 2:6-8)
and
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh,
(1Ti 3:16a)
etc etc
peace
Did Paul Write About Jesus as a Historical Person?
I know, right?
Acts 2:21
No true writing of Paul…
Support your claim or you must retract it.
1st Cor 11:24-26,
peace
Paul’s rendition of the last Supper seems to have more in common with Mithraic rites common in Tarsus at the time, than earliest Christian practice as described in the Didache.
Mung,
Harpur is a strawman.
I think the most reasonable answer is that Paul did not know the details of Jesus’ life first hand and for that reason could not dwell upon them in his writings.
Did Paul paganize Christ? Yeah, in a manner of speaking. Don’t forget there were many interpretative versions of Christianity in the first three centuries before orthodoxy established a stranglehold on belief thanks to Constantine.
As I mentioned earlier, this book should be made into a movie.
Excellent read!
1) 1st Corinthians (ca.53-54 AD) is much older than the Didache (ca. 100-150)
2) Paul use of the rabbinic formula “I received” indicates that the episode he relates is older still and standardized in content by that time.
3) The prayers in the Didache don’t contradict what Paul wrote in any way.
4) “Mithraic rites” were most likely borrowed from Christian practice rather than the other way round.
peace
1 – I side with the opinion that the Didache was probably written between 65 and 80 CE, understanding that dating this document is problematic and controversial.
Paul died in 64 CE which makes dating his writing less problematic in theory, except many Pauline epistles are obvious forgeries and so-called authentic letters were often bowdlerized in subsequent centuries. I have no problem that tradition as recorded by the Didache describes a primitive version of at least one version of the Christian Church that is contemporaneous or may even predate Paul’s writing.
2 – Your citation of Paul’s use of the rabbinic formula is very unconvincing, unless I am missing something.
3 – The so-called Eucharist prayers in the Didache do contradict what Paul wrote. The Didache prayers were for all intents and purposes merely saying “Grace” before & after eating a meal. The Didache is quite specific about the prayer’s intent to precede and follow a meal and not the already ritualized ceremony suggested of Paul. The Didache in many ways reminds me of a Christianized version of a brachah rishonah that pious Jews still recite before and after partaking of any food and drink (no surprises really).
http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html
4 – Who preceded whom? Did the Mithraic pagans copy the Christians or the other way around? Plutarch notes Cilician pirates were practicing Mithraic rites by 67 B.C. Many authorities confirm that Paul’s hometown of Tarsus was a major centre of Mithraic practice until Paul’s Christos eventually prevailed. Meanwhile even early church apologists, such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tertullian conceded blatant plagiarism when comparing the obvious similarities between Christianity and earlier pagan mythology and practice! According to the Church fathers, such commonalities constituted “diabolical mimicry.” Satan had presumably resorted to anticipatory plagiarism by preempting the gospel stories and Christian practice long before Jesus’ birth in order to confound the pious later on and after Jesus’ death.
Interesting parallels with Christos and Mithras are discussed in this link from Scientific American:
http://www.mysterium.com/sciam.html
Dominus tecum
My apologies for needing to repeatedly edit the preceding post…
… some editing glitch kept on duplicating my writing.
Fixed now.
I haven’t read the bible in years — can you provide a book and verse or are you going to subject me to that experience again? 😉
I think the utter and complete lack of contemporary evidence makes the mythicist position at least defensible. The historicity of Jesus is certainly not beyond doubt.
Certainly not in this forum!
You made me re-read parts of the bible. Tell your preacher to give you an extra wafer this Sunday.
Given the context from Galatians 3 and the rest of 4, it’s not clear that this is anything more than a reference to Old Testament prophesy (Isaiah 7:14, for example). Paul is talking about beliefs, not history.
(Shakespeare was right, I can cite Scripture for my purposes.)
This also reflects a prophesy in Isaiah (42:1-3). Again, Paul is talking about Christian beliefs.
One important aspect to consider when discussing what Paul means is the context of the time. I’m far from a biblical scholar, but Earl Doherty covers this at length. He makes the case that Paul was talking about a heavenly Jesus.
First Timothy is not generally accepted as having been written by Paul.
Whether you agree with these views of Paul or not, the fact remains that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus. That doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, of course, but it does mean that the mythicist position is at least logically tenable.
This retelling of the Last Supper suggests that Paul copied from the same source as Luke.
Paul’s meeting with Peter in Antioch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_at_Antioch
and Paul’s participation in the Council of Jerusalem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem
I do not understand what you meant by
The historicity of Jesus is certainly not beyond doubt.
If we agree that Paul was not a total wingnut moonbat and was somewhat grounded in reality (at least as evidenced by other oral traditions) then Paul met Peter and the other apostles in real life and these real-life simple folk were not expounding according to some Neo-Platonic hand-waving Gnostic suppositions, but were rather talking to Paul about some real-life chap who unfortunately got on the wrong side of the Roman constabulary.
Now the suggestion that Paul later retold this simple-folk real-life story again in Gnostic terms was an idea first suggested by Elaine Pagels, but we digress.
Thanks, I’ll read those this weekend.
They make sense to me! 😉
What I was trying to convey in the first is disagreement with your statement that there is no doubt that some historical person was at the base of the Jesus stories (please excuse me if that’s not a valid paraphrase). That is, I don’t think that has been demonstrated beyond any doubt.
The second is just reinforcing that. Because there is absolutely no contemporaneous evidence, mythicism is at least defensible.
So sorry Patrick,
you will notice I picked up my error and changed my original response. We just cross-posted.
Your turn of phrase is very subtle and nuanced and I missed one word: “not”.
My bad… however I still rebut.
Not in serous academic circles, “mythicism” has about as much credibility as “Intelligent Design”; and for the same reasons.
“Subtle and nuanced” is a very polite way of saying “unnecessarily convoluted.”
😉
Not at all,
… I need to confess that English is not my first language.
I direct your attention to my rewritten rebuttal:
best
Mythicism is a religiously motivated political movement pretending to be science in order to get around the U.S. constitution?
Seriously, if there were evidence then mythicism would be refuted. Isn’t it the case that the vast majority of biblical scholars are Christians and may therefore have non-academic reasons to find mythicism lacking in credibility?
Intriguing remark, Tom. I mean one can claim with equal validity that a historical Jesus, about whom the various supernatural claims are made, existed or didn’t exist. There’s no convincing evidence to support or contradict Jesus’ existence as a human being. What there is is second-hand and circumstantial. And I don’t really see that it matters. It is the walking-on-water and water-into-wine stuff that is so, well, implausible – the figment of fevered imaginations.
I gotta run:
Just in passing will say:
Biblical studies can be just as empirically rigorous as Biochemistry by academics no less atheist/agnostic than Larry Moran (as just one example jumping to mind)
I urge you to read Bart Ehrman’s book
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman)
… which manages to slay the Mythicist shibboleth once and for all!
With respect Alan, I think you are missing an important point that I would not whisper on sandwalk.blogspot (as just one for example)
I once discussed a similar question with a very pious mitnaged rabbi who answered a similar question regarding Moses. Did Moses actually write Torah, and does it matter?
Answer: most assuredly not and it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how the book gets written but how it gets read. The world is undoubtedly a better place because the Hebrew Testament was written and taken to heart, indeed a light to the nations of the world.
I really believe this as well.
… and I would continue, ditto the Christian Testament: again the world is a better place because the Christian Testament was written and taken to heart albeit admittedly by not as many and as often enough as desirable.
Elaine Pagels first alerted me to this surprising and at first glance counter-intuitive suggestion. The Pagan world was mean and nasty. Children, women and slaves were chattel. A child could be purchased on the open slave market and horrifically abused at will was one example I remember Pagels mentioning. ITMT, Neo-Paganism aka Nazism is not a direction we want our world to go.
Where am I taking this?
Consider Albert Schweitzer – a hero of mine! I invite you to read his autobiography. He did not buy into the walking-on-water and water-into-wine stuff that is so, well, implausible – the figment of fevered imaginations” yet the Bible inspired Albert Schweitzer to be a “light to the world” and the world is a better place for Albert Schweitzer having been a biblical scholar as well as a follower of the Bible.
Atheist/Agnostics continue today to find inspiration in the Bible.
Check out
http://ehrmanblog.org/philanthropy/
Yeah yeah… I can already anticipate your impatience. But where does that leave us with who or what G-d really is and is not?… and what about that hapless itinerant rabbi who got on the wrong side of the Roman constabulary; who or what really is Jesus and is not Jesus?
My mitnaged rabbi would remind you of Moses and provide you a cryptic pilpul of an answer, that on its own would leave you no further ahead or behind…
… and that too would be a good thing.
😉
‘nuff said. I hope Lizzy approves.
I think you’ve got a tough row to hoe if you want to support the idea that Christianity has been a net force for good, especially when one considers what ethical systems it might have prevented from flowering.
I won’t be able to go deeper into that topic before the weekend, at which point I suspect you’ll be heavily engaged by others. Bon chance!
Hmmm – one of Patrick’s remarks above inspired this random stream of conjecture:
Before continuing this discussion perhaps we should define our terms:
SACRAMENT, n. A solemn religious ceremony to which several degrees of authority and significance are attached. Rome has seven sacraments, but the Protestant churches, being less prosperous, feel that they can afford only two, and these of inferior sanctity. Some of the smaller sects have no sacraments at all — for which mean economy they will indubitably be damned.
SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.
SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else.
AUTHENTIC, adj. Indubitably true — in somebody’s opinion.
He ne’er discredited authentic news,
That tended to substantiate his views,
And never controverted an assertion
When true, if it was easy of perversion.
So frank was he that where he was unjust
He always would confess it when he must.
—”The Lawyer,” 1750
CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.
I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din —
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
“God keep you, stranger,” I exclaimed. “You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too.”
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied — his manner with disdain was spiced:
“What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I’m Christ.”
—G.J.
for more:
http://www.thedevilsdictionary.com/
Hi Patrick
Regarding my random act of mischief, let’s just say the Devil made me do it.
😉
That said, I agree the world would probably have been an even far better place if the Khazars and not Constantine’s heirs had held sway.
again 😉
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/04/473004808/human-sacrifice-is-linked-to-social-hierarchies-in-new-study
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/human-sacrifice-may-have-helped-societies-become-more-complex
I feel like I’m missing a subtle point you’re making, but I enjoyed the links!
We are discussing 1st Corinthians it universally accepted as authentically Pauline by serious scholarship. Red hearings aside,
The meal was the early Christian practice called the “love feast” of which the Eucharist was a part.
It was meal that celebrated the dawning of Messianic age while at the same time looking back to the sacrifice that brought it all about.
Paul is emphasizing the somber part of the meal to balance the practice of the believers in Corinth who were getting a little rowdy.
The Didache and Paul are perfectly compatible if you understand the background.
I suggest you look into the love feast it’s an interesting topic.
peace
quote:
Mithraism, also known as the Mythraic mysteries, was a mystery religion centred around the god Mithras that was practised in the Roman Empire from about the 1st to the 4th century.
end quote:
from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
If you disagree with this statement please support your claim with a primary text describing “Mythraic rituals” from before the first century.
thanks in advance
Peace
What does that even mean? It sounds like a weasel way of dismissing the entirety of scholarship on the subject. Talk about conspiracy theory
I could just as easily say there is no contemporary evidence that OJ killed Nichole because no one saw him do it. What does that prove?
Since when is it a requirement that evidence be contemporary?
There is no “contemporary evidence” that Caesar crossed the rubicon but no one seriously doubts he did it.
peace