News3 mins ago
Why Should God Appear/exist At All?
217 Answers
I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad, //many respected historians (I'm repeating myself) consider the Gospels as well as most other Biblical sources to be equally excellent.//
If they do, they are deceiving themselves, but then I fear you may be confusing serious historians for people with an agenda.
//Naomi in one of her posts said (I paraphrase) I (meaning me) don't know the truth, she doesn't know the truth, nobody knows the truth… but that can equally apply to other historical events which are accepted as being true…//
Irrelevant. No other (I’ll say ‘alleged’ for your benefit) historical event continues to influence billions or to impact upon the world and upon people's personal lives as the 'alleged' history of religion does. It’s a meaningless analogy.
If they do, they are deceiving themselves, but then I fear you may be confusing serious historians for people with an agenda.
//Naomi in one of her posts said (I paraphrase) I (meaning me) don't know the truth, she doesn't know the truth, nobody knows the truth… but that can equally apply to other historical events which are accepted as being true…//
Irrelevant. No other (I’ll say ‘alleged’ for your benefit) historical event continues to influence billions or to impact upon the world and upon people's personal lives as the 'alleged' history of religion does. It’s a meaningless analogy.
@Clanad
//Hypognosis… you say "Repeatedly, we've placed the stress on the need for contemporary sources..", yet all historians when writing on historical events are not contemporaries with the sources… Very few are alive today that were during WW I, yet excellent histories of that era continue to emerge. The author used preexisting sources, often, themselves not contemporaneous. //
Yes, that is what a historian is: a person who *reviews* the past; who (more often than not) was not there at that time; who gathers the disorganised and disparate tales of protagonists from both sides (of a war, say) or many sides (politics) and turns them into a comprehensible narrative. May contain 'spin' but readers soon grow to understand in which way a historian is biased.
It matters not how efficient, or reliable (unbiased) Tacitus was as a historian, what matters is *was he there*?
If the answer is no, then he was merely the recorder of oral histories. All we are saying is that decades passed between Jesus' death and the tales being written down. I am thinking that the discrepancies in the Gospels are the result of a geographic separation of these oral traditions. Changes in one version were not transmitted to the version in circulation hundreds of miles away, so they diverged.
They evolved, dare I say.
From a common 'ancestor' tale.
But modifications of any sort implies 'embellishment'. People made stuff up, is my conclusion.
I don't know the detail of the Jewish prophecy, so I cannot, yet, say that the witnesses and disciples were trying claim things happened which fit the prophecy. Why make stuff up if not to achieve just that?
//Hypognosis… you say "Repeatedly, we've placed the stress on the need for contemporary sources..", yet all historians when writing on historical events are not contemporaries with the sources… Very few are alive today that were during WW I, yet excellent histories of that era continue to emerge. The author used preexisting sources, often, themselves not contemporaneous. //
Yes, that is what a historian is: a person who *reviews* the past; who (more often than not) was not there at that time; who gathers the disorganised and disparate tales of protagonists from both sides (of a war, say) or many sides (politics) and turns them into a comprehensible narrative. May contain 'spin' but readers soon grow to understand in which way a historian is biased.
It matters not how efficient, or reliable (unbiased) Tacitus was as a historian, what matters is *was he there*?
If the answer is no, then he was merely the recorder of oral histories. All we are saying is that decades passed between Jesus' death and the tales being written down. I am thinking that the discrepancies in the Gospels are the result of a geographic separation of these oral traditions. Changes in one version were not transmitted to the version in circulation hundreds of miles away, so they diverged.
They evolved, dare I say.
From a common 'ancestor' tale.
But modifications of any sort implies 'embellishment'. People made stuff up, is my conclusion.
I don't know the detail of the Jewish prophecy, so I cannot, yet, say that the witnesses and disciples were trying claim things happened which fit the prophecy. Why make stuff up if not to achieve just that?
Hypognosis, I'm a little startled that you go to such extents to make many "facts" fit your needed bias.
The intent of the Tacitus inclusion is to demonstrate that many of the basic facts of the narrative (Pilate's name and role, reference to 'Chrestus', place and time, etc., make him more than a simple recorder of other's tales... he knows, since the document is an official "memo" to superiors, it must be accurate and that those he's writing to must also know many of the facts. This is significant and Tacitus isn't the only one to write thusly.
The theory you posit for the short lived oral tradition doesn't hold water either. Even Paul/Saul's first writings are placed at about AD65 with Mark's Gospel possibly being as early as AD 45. Oral traditions in the Middle East (and elsewhere for that matter) are well known to be accurate and those utilizing it are "schooled" in the technique to nearly impossible standards judged by our rather lackadaisical western mode of telling tales. But, more imprtantly, assuming Tacitus and others to be writing in the 60's, 70's and 80's means that many people alive (especially Jewish authorities and Temple leaders) at the time would have been able to easily dispute and counter the Jesus narrative... no such documents exist. In fact Jewish tradition from that time clearly support nearly all of the facts of His life, with the exception of Him being Messiah.
Tacitus was born in the early 50's (52AD is the date I often see quoted) and assuming 25 to 30 years to mature into his political position we arrive at a date of only 30 to 40 years following the actual events. By any reasonable examination, far to short of a time for allegories or other non-historical tales to develop considering the still living eyewitnesses.
The histories of Josephus are equally as supporting. I, know, I know... many dispute all of such writers, but many support them as well. Take your pick... but they can't all be wrong... or wrong in the same vein.
Your "They evolved, dare I say..." is too much of a stretch and belies a doryphorical attitude which I haven't witnessed with you previously...
The intent of the Tacitus inclusion is to demonstrate that many of the basic facts of the narrative (Pilate's name and role, reference to 'Chrestus', place and time, etc., make him more than a simple recorder of other's tales... he knows, since the document is an official "memo" to superiors, it must be accurate and that those he's writing to must also know many of the facts. This is significant and Tacitus isn't the only one to write thusly.
The theory you posit for the short lived oral tradition doesn't hold water either. Even Paul/Saul's first writings are placed at about AD65 with Mark's Gospel possibly being as early as AD 45. Oral traditions in the Middle East (and elsewhere for that matter) are well known to be accurate and those utilizing it are "schooled" in the technique to nearly impossible standards judged by our rather lackadaisical western mode of telling tales. But, more imprtantly, assuming Tacitus and others to be writing in the 60's, 70's and 80's means that many people alive (especially Jewish authorities and Temple leaders) at the time would have been able to easily dispute and counter the Jesus narrative... no such documents exist. In fact Jewish tradition from that time clearly support nearly all of the facts of His life, with the exception of Him being Messiah.
Tacitus was born in the early 50's (52AD is the date I often see quoted) and assuming 25 to 30 years to mature into his political position we arrive at a date of only 30 to 40 years following the actual events. By any reasonable examination, far to short of a time for allegories or other non-historical tales to develop considering the still living eyewitnesses.
The histories of Josephus are equally as supporting. I, know, I know... many dispute all of such writers, but many support them as well. Take your pick... but they can't all be wrong... or wrong in the same vein.
Your "They evolved, dare I say..." is too much of a stretch and belies a doryphorical attitude which I haven't witnessed with you previously...
@Clanad,
I'll consider the rest of your post after I've had a decent sleep but
//he knows, since the document is an official "memo" to superiors//
Erm, what document? I recall saying words to the effect of "there should have at least been a report of an executed dissident" but that was entirely *expectation*. Supposition, if you want to be less kind.
Dory-what-ical? I'll have to Google that!
I'll consider the rest of your post after I've had a decent sleep but
//he knows, since the document is an official "memo" to superiors//
Erm, what document? I recall saying words to the effect of "there should have at least been a report of an executed dissident" but that was entirely *expectation*. Supposition, if you want to be less kind.
Dory-what-ical? I'll have to Google that!
Clanad, ‘reported’ there? That’s not a report; it’s yet another example of wishful thinking written by a self-publishing Christian apologist who hosts a dodgy and highly biased website and describes himself, quite bizarrely, as "trained to look things up and answer questions”.
From your link:
//…. it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century),//
Enough said.
If Tacitus’ writings were unquestionably accurate – in fact if any irrefutable evidence existed at all - we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Have a good day…..
From your link:
//…. it appears in every known copy of the Annals (although there are very few copies of it, and none dates earlier than the 11th century),//
Enough said.
If Tacitus’ writings were unquestionably accurate – in fact if any irrefutable evidence existed at all - we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Have a good day…..
/But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. /
So that's where plea bargaining origiated.
So that's where plea bargaining origiated.
You may be right, of course, Naomi, but I count (before giving up) at least footnoted references supporting our friend Tacitus within the article presented. I recognize many of the referenced authors and they are well respected historians and others that decipher ancient documents.
11th century? Well, that makes it nearly contemporaneous with the Vercingoterix references in Julius' Annals which of course, almost everyone believes as valid but with only 10 copies all done nearly at the same 10th century timeframe. See what I mean by "it depends on the subject matter?"
11th century? Well, that makes it nearly contemporaneous with the Vercingoterix references in Julius' Annals which of course, almost everyone believes as valid but with only 10 copies all done nearly at the same 10th century timeframe. See what I mean by "it depends on the subject matter?"
@Clanad
Have you grasped that we are not questioning Tacitus' veracity (fidelity might be a better word) or that later generations of historians hold his writings in high regard; we are questioning the fact that he did not witness the gospel events first hand. Therefore he is a *secondary* source. A high-fidelity recording but of hearsay (the oral histories).
That is why I stressed the need for extant records which were contemporary with the gospel events.
Sidebar: I will take from this thread the bit about the separate "face napkin" and body cover, which the disciples seem to have left on the floor of the tomb, in their rush to tell others about the missing body, in the two narratives compared, earlier in the thread.
Have you grasped that we are not questioning Tacitus' veracity (fidelity might be a better word) or that later generations of historians hold his writings in high regard; we are questioning the fact that he did not witness the gospel events first hand. Therefore he is a *secondary* source. A high-fidelity recording but of hearsay (the oral histories).
That is why I stressed the need for extant records which were contemporary with the gospel events.
Sidebar: I will take from this thread the bit about the separate "face napkin" and body cover, which the disciples seem to have left on the floor of the tomb, in their rush to tell others about the missing body, in the two narratives compared, earlier in the thread.
Clanad, you appear to be saying that because one source of history (regardless of subject) is generally considered to be fairly accurate it follows that all others must be considered likewise. When examining reports of events that have no bearing whatsoever on the world today that may be acceptable, but here we are exploring a truly extraordinary story founded upon a mish-mash of often contradictory reports of alleged supernatural events that has continued for two thousand years to affect the lives of millions. Whilst apathetic acceptance of hearsay and guesswork may well suffice in areas where it matters not, in this instance that is not enough. This story demands genuinely impartial investigation and it demands real answers. Wanting it to be true doesn’t make it so. Surely you can understand that? No?
While I'm sure we've come to the end of anything approaching a meaningful discourse, I fail to understand either Naomi or Hypognosis misinterpretation of similar evidence for historical events. Meaning, of course it would be nice to have contemporary eyewitness accounts all neatly stacked in a row and all agreeing with each other for ancient events... but that never happens... my rendition of the Vercingoterix saga (without beating it to death) is a prime example. Similar in source and similar in any kind of nose count it's only the Vercingoterix tale that is allowed in the door. Regardless of how Naomi protests that somehow the Yeshua story doesn't deserve the same recognition even though the scholars comparing reports and using the same types of investigative tools produce the same types of historically based documentation... It has to be simply the bias of the reader and not superior determinative powers.
Same is with Hypognosis... especially re: the labelling of Tacitus' as "secondary"... all such "reports" delving with historical events with no living witnesses are "secondary".
But... (repeating myself here) When a report is produced several years later by someone who has investigated the matter that includes evidences that are included in the earliest reports of the event, one may assume the earlier reports to be accurate. This, since the later reporter reiterates the original rendition. This happens over and over throughout history and is a technique scholars and scientists utilize to determine the historicity of the original event.
Hypognosis fails to understand the true meaning of John's viewing the carefully folded "face napkin" and it's "fit" with Jewish culture and habits of the day to help him in his belief of a Risen Yeshua... it is significant especially, again, in placing the event in historical context of the 1st century Jewish belief system...
Lastly... the writers of the Gospels are nearly contemporaneous and out of the thousands of bits, pieces and entire scrolls copied from their originals there nas never been evidence that anyone but the named writers actually wrote the tomes. Each scroll of that day had the name of the writer on the front of the scroll... never once is there an example of any name but the ones we see today...
And... we have come full circle since Naomi continues with accusations of a "mish-mash of often contradictory reports of alleged supernatural events that has continued for two thousand years to affect the lives of millions..." the alleged contradictions have all been answered a multitude of times over the centuries... at least to the satisfaction of wise and erudite scholars as well as the common man.
Same is with Hypognosis... especially re: the labelling of Tacitus' as "secondary"... all such "reports" delving with historical events with no living witnesses are "secondary".
But... (repeating myself here) When a report is produced several years later by someone who has investigated the matter that includes evidences that are included in the earliest reports of the event, one may assume the earlier reports to be accurate. This, since the later reporter reiterates the original rendition. This happens over and over throughout history and is a technique scholars and scientists utilize to determine the historicity of the original event.
Hypognosis fails to understand the true meaning of John's viewing the carefully folded "face napkin" and it's "fit" with Jewish culture and habits of the day to help him in his belief of a Risen Yeshua... it is significant especially, again, in placing the event in historical context of the 1st century Jewish belief system...
Lastly... the writers of the Gospels are nearly contemporaneous and out of the thousands of bits, pieces and entire scrolls copied from their originals there nas never been evidence that anyone but the named writers actually wrote the tomes. Each scroll of that day had the name of the writer on the front of the scroll... never once is there an example of any name but the ones we see today...
And... we have come full circle since Naomi continues with accusations of a "mish-mash of often contradictory reports of alleged supernatural events that has continued for two thousand years to affect the lives of millions..." the alleged contradictions have all been answered a multitude of times over the centuries... at least to the satisfaction of wise and erudite scholars as well as the common man.
Clanad, //the alleged contradictions have all been answered a multitude of times over the centuries... at least to the satisfaction of wise and erudite scholars as well as the common man.//
So we are not wise, nor erudite, nor common. I can’t imagine where that leaves us and I can’t speak for Hypognosis, but your opinion of me is of little consequence.
//Naomi protests that somehow the Yeshua story doesn't deserve the same recognition…//
No, Naomi doesn’t say that. Naomi says that this story warrants even more thorough - and certainly more honest - investigation.
My interest in religion is to discover the elusive truth and explanations for contradictions from people with a Christian agenda to fulfil just do not wash. To me the whole Jesus story is a fascinating mystery – like a giant jigsaw puzzle comprised of impossible shapes that, without rational explanation, simply do not fit together. I often wonder what Sherlock Holmes would make of it?
Your contention that “the carefully folded face napkin” somehow provides evidence of the resurrection is no more valid than the story of Barabbas. There was no such Jewish “habit of the day”, just as there was no special concession to release a prisoner of choice to the Jews at Passover.
This question relating to the napkin from a self-proclaimed Charismatic Christian:
//Is this a real Hebrew tradition?//
…. and the answer [edited by me for the sake of much needed brevity here] given by Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner:
//I've consulted a number of solid, academic references and can find nothing to indicate that there existed such a custom…. Not finding this custom mentioned anywhere in any fashion in Jewish sources for the past 2000 years I would suggest that it didn't exist.//
http://
You can make it up all you like, Clanad, and believe others who do just that – but that doesn’t make it right.
So we are not wise, nor erudite, nor common. I can’t imagine where that leaves us and I can’t speak for Hypognosis, but your opinion of me is of little consequence.
//Naomi protests that somehow the Yeshua story doesn't deserve the same recognition…//
No, Naomi doesn’t say that. Naomi says that this story warrants even more thorough - and certainly more honest - investigation.
My interest in religion is to discover the elusive truth and explanations for contradictions from people with a Christian agenda to fulfil just do not wash. To me the whole Jesus story is a fascinating mystery – like a giant jigsaw puzzle comprised of impossible shapes that, without rational explanation, simply do not fit together. I often wonder what Sherlock Holmes would make of it?
Your contention that “the carefully folded face napkin” somehow provides evidence of the resurrection is no more valid than the story of Barabbas. There was no such Jewish “habit of the day”, just as there was no special concession to release a prisoner of choice to the Jews at Passover.
This question relating to the napkin from a self-proclaimed Charismatic Christian:
//Is this a real Hebrew tradition?//
…. and the answer [edited by me for the sake of much needed brevity here] given by Rabbi Barry Dov Lerner:
//I've consulted a number of solid, academic references and can find nothing to indicate that there existed such a custom…. Not finding this custom mentioned anywhere in any fashion in Jewish sources for the past 2000 years I would suggest that it didn't exist.//
http://
You can make it up all you like, Clanad, and believe others who do just that – but that doesn’t make it right.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
The Religion Of Peace Strike Again...and...
News10 mins ago
Music16 mins ago
Sport17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.