Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:06:26 AM
713394 Posts in 53059 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Special Poll for Easter - WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH? « previous next »
Poll
Question: Who or what do you think Jesus of Nazareth was?  (Voting closed: May 07, 2012, 03:39:23 PM)
The Son of God - 10 (43.5%)
A First Century Jewish Mystic - 1 (4.3%)
A Lunatic - 0 (0%)
A Prophet - 0 (0%)
Mainly a Myth - 6 (26.1%)
A First Century Political Revolutionary - 6 (26.1%)
A Misunderstood Rabbi - 0 (0%)
Total Voters: 18

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Author Topic: Special Poll for Easter - WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH?  (Read 20198 times)
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #45 on: April 11, 2012, 04:02:48 PM »

hi
I must confess having read the title for  this thread i was somewhat concerned that it may invoke an argument between some of you guys.Religion is a notorious subject to debate and being such a personal subject i could see quite a few snide remarks surface. How pleased i am to admit that this was not the case,all who have answered Indy's question has done so with respect and admiration.You guys really are a rare breed of people and it is because of your respect and diversity that Andrew should feel proud of bringing you together on this site.
       

       KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK AND LONG MAY YOUR FRIENDSHIP CONTINUE.

Indy is a gentleman. He is also a fellow Navy vet, so I cut him a little extra slack.  Wink

Indy and I have been able to swat the ball back and forth on more occasions that I can count anymore, and I can only hope that he has gained as much these experiences as I have. He's still usually wrong though.  TeddyR
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #46 on: April 11, 2012, 04:45:16 PM »

Good comments from all concerned.
Flick - your comments about "cherry picking history" a la David Barton are intriguing.
   If you are looking for historical quotes about a particular subject; i.e. our earlier discussion about religion and our founding fathers - the simplest way to do it is to find an index of their writings and look up "religion."  There you have everything they said on that particular topic.  Is that "cherrypicking," or is that simply confining your search to the subject at hand?  As for the early dating of the Gospels, agenda aside, the early dates actually seem to best fit most of the archeological and historical facts we have. The reason the so-called "higher critics", starting at Tubingen in the mid-19th century (Julius Wellhausen and others) argued for dating the Gospels much later than the events they describe is because they were following a rather self-fulfilling logic: Miracles are impossible.  Therefore, any story that records a miracle CANNOT be eyewitness testimony, but rather MUST be a myth made up long after the actual event.  Since myth formation is known to take a long time, therefore the Gospels MUST be dated much, much later than the events they record.  They dated Mark to the 80's AD, Matthew and Luke to the late 90's, and John to around 180 AD, NOT because of archeological or historical evidence, but rather because their ideological bias required those dates.  20th and 21st century archeological and historical discoveries have pushed the Gospels further back, although those who reject the miraculous still have a knee-jerk tendency to want them to date later, for the same reason that the "higher critics" did - because they are UNWILLING to allow the possibility that maybe miraculous events really did occur.  So I think you will find that secularists can be just as agenda-driven as religious people.

     Here is something for you and Cthulhu to both mull over; I'm not demanding any sort of rebuttal or response, although (as always) I will welcome one if it is offered.  The origins of Christianity as a belief system are centered around a very strong belief that Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead on the third day.  This belief was so strong in the early church that Paul, writing in I Corinthians (a book that is FIRMLY dated to 54-55 AD by virtually all Bible scholars, both secular and religious) said that "If Christ is not raised, you are still in your sins, and your faith is worthless .  . . if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (I Corinthians 15: 17a & 19).  Earlier in the same chapter, he gives a list of eyewitnesses who personally saw the risen Christ, and mentions that most of them are still living.  Not only that, the formula he uses to introduce this list: "For I passed on to you, as of first importance, that which I also received" is a verbal formula used by rabbis to introduce something that they had memorized, taught by someone else.  If you back trace Paul's career, you find that he visited Peter in Jerusalem some six to eight years after Jesus' crucifixion and spent about two weeks there.  That would have been the prime opportunity for him to have been taught the primitive catechism he recites in I Cor. 15: 3-7 - the list of resurrection eyewitnesses.  What am I getting at?
  Whether you accept or reject the events recorded in the Gospels, it is inarguable fact that just a few years after Jesus was crucified, his followers in Jerusalem were publicly proclaiming that He rose from the dead, and passing on and memorizing a list of all the eyewitnesses who had seen Him after His Resurrection. Even if you reject the Resurrection as fact, SOMETHING happened after the Crucifixion which created an unshakable conviction that Christ was not only risen from the dead, but that He also was, in fact, God in human flesh, now ascended to heaven after teaching His disciples the message they were now spreading.
  This begs a very simple question: if not a resurrection, then WHAT?  These people may have been primitive by some standards, but they did grasp one simple truth: DEAD PEOPLE STAY DEAD (George A. Romero was not around to convince them otherwise).  Something as simple as a missing body alone would not have been able to convince them all that Jesus had returned - especially not a pragmatist like Thomas, who said "Unless I see the nail prints in His hand, and put my finger where the spear pierced his side, I will NOT believe!" 
  So again, if not a Resurrection, then WHAT created a movement that would ultimately change the ancient world forever?
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
Pacman000
Guest
« Reply #47 on: April 11, 2012, 05:09:54 PM »

Quote
(George A. Romero was not around to convince them otherwise).
BounceGiggle BounceGiggle BounceGiggle
Logged
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #48 on: April 11, 2012, 07:01:17 PM »

Every person interested in examining the concept of damnation and salvation with a modern interpretation should read INFERNO by LARRY NIVEN and JERRY POURNELLE.  This is a wonderful book of speculative fiction that you won't soon forget and likely will reread and reread. 
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2012, 07:19:54 PM »


Every person interested in examining the concept of damnation and salvation with a modern interpretation should read INFERNO by LARRY NIVEN and JERRY POURNELLE.  This is a wonderful book of speculative fiction that you won't soon forget and likely will reread and reread. 


I have not read that one, but they are a VERY strong writing team.  I'll have to check that one out.
Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2012, 07:30:35 PM »

Quote
Flick - your comments about "cherry picking history" a la David Barton are intriguing.

“Cherry picking,” or at least what I am implying with the term, refers to the classification of researched information into what supports one’s belief and what does not, and then rejecting the latter. I’m not talking about refining one’s search. I’m talking about the outright rejection of contrary evidence. David Barton is well known as an evangelical activist. This does not mean that the whole of his research is wrong, it simply means that his conclusions must be questioned because he holds supernatural claims that he must prove. While secular historians may be more skeptical, I trust their objectivity more. What is saddest of all is that traditional approaches to analyzing history often do not work for religious history. Objectivity is a challenge from the outset. All historians can view an archeological bit of evidence that has no religious significance on pretty much equal footing, regardless of spiritual leanings, but once the bit becomes evidence of something concerning a commonly embraced religious belief, look out. Nobody can be trusted to be objective.

Quote
The reason the so-called "higher critics", starting at Tubingen in the mid-19th century (Julius Wellhausen and others) argued for dating the Gospels much later than the events they describe is because they were following a rather self-fulfilling logic: Miracles are impossible.  Therefore, any story that records a miracle CANNOT be eyewitness testimony, but rather MUST be a myth made up long after the actual event.  Since myth formation is known to take a long time, therefore the Gospels MUST be dated much, much later than the events they record.  They dated Mark to the 80's AD, Matthew and Luke to the late 90's, and John to around 180 AD, NOT because of archeological or historical evidence, but rather because their ideological bias required those dates.  20th and 21st century archeological and historical discoveries have pushed the Gospels further back, although those who reject the miraculous still have a knee-jerk tendency to want them to date later, for the same reason that the "higher critics" did - because they are UNWILLING to allow the possibility that maybe miraculous events really did occur.  So I think you will find that secularists can be just as agenda-driven as religious people.

Well, my rebuttal here would first be that this is pretty sound logic. I myself rule out miracles because they are a contradiction to natural law. I myself have also seen, firsthand, religious interpretation of events that had no supernatural cause, so how can I trust the eyewitness testimony of the gospels from 2000 years ago, even if they WERE written in the lifetimes of those that supposedly witnessed them? Researching this is an abolute mess because I cannot trust the objectivity of most of what I come across. I will be willing to bet that if I ask you for a listing of your sources, that most if not all of them will be from the perspective of a religious agenda. I am very curious which archeological discoveries you are referring to because I would love to research them for myself. I wonder if you are being swayed by evangelical interpretation of discoveries or if the discoveries themselves are self-evident. Finally on this point, I think I said already that secularists can be just as agenda-driven as religious people. What I said is that I tend to trust secular objectivity moreso than religious objectivity. I find the words "religious" "objectivity" to be at least somewhat mutually exclusive.

Quote
The origins of Christianity as a belief system are centered around a very strong belief that Jesus of Nazareth physically rose from the dead on the third day.  This belief was so strong in the early church that Paul, writing in I Corinthians (a book that is FIRMLY dated to 54-55 AD by virtually all Bible scholars, both secular and religious) said that "If Christ is not raised, you are still in your sins, and your faith is worthless .  . . if we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (I Corinthians 15: 17a & 19).  Earlier in the same chapter, he gives a list of eyewitnesses who personally saw the risen Christ, and mentions that most of them are still living.

Yet, if I read the resurrection passages in Mark (the oldest of the four gospels as I understand it), it is not an angel, but a man, sitting in a tomb that is already opened, yet in the other three, he is an angel, or two angels, or the tomb was witnessed as opened BY an angel. This is not minor variation in eyewitness testimony. This is a significant departure by supposedly later versions of the story. Later in Mark, somebody appears to Mary and the other disciples, and he bears no resemblance to Jesus, to the point that they don’t believe it is him. It is only after he berates them for their non-belief that they accept the idea. I have read the Mark version of the resurrection many times, and it’s like looking at one of those pictures where you have to stare at it until the picture emerges, but once you see it you can’t get it out of you mind. If I were religious minded, I would call that a revelation. Since I am not, I simply call it reason.

I know you are a man of faith, but haven’t you ever questioned the Mark version of the resurrection, and the subequent level of embellishment present in the other three gospels? I don’t know. I’ve never seen a resurrected body, but I have no idea if that makes the body looks differently, so I am left with using my reason to read between the lines. Isn’t it possible that it was no more than another man that appeared and claimed to be Jesus resurrected, and that they were so desperate to believe it that they accepted it? I know what you will say, that it is not possible, but of course it is perfectly possible. I’m not saying it happened that way, but I am saying that it is more likely to the laws of nature than it being a risen dead man. Call me crazy.

Quote
Whether you accept or reject the events recorded in the Gospels, it is inarguable fact that just a few years after Jesus was crucified, his followers in Jerusalem were publicly proclaiming that He rose from the dead, and passing on and memorizing a list of all the eyewitnesses who had seen Him after His Resurrection. Even if you reject the Resurrection as fact, SOMETHING happened after the Crucifixion which created an unshakable conviction that Christ was not only risen from the dead, but that He also was, in fact, God in human flesh, now ascended to heaven after teaching His disciples the message they were now spreading.

I don’t think I ever questioned that SOMETHING happened. SOMETHING happened to the prophets of Islam too. SOMETHING happened to Buddha as well. SOMETHING happened to Zoroaster. Christianity is not the first religion to believe that somebody was resurrected and embodied divinity, but it was the first faith to put so much focus on this aspect. I don’t say that Christianity borrowed this from older religions, but I do accept that it is possible. I mean, you’re asking me to consider the possibility that Jesus was raised from the dead. I’m asking you to consider the possibility that the concept of a deity raised in the flesh of a man was borrowed.

Quote
This begs a very simple question: if not a resurrection, then WHAT?
 

See above for the possibilities I have considered.

Quote
These people may have been primitive by some standards, but they did grasp one simple truth: DEAD PEOPLE STAY DEAD (George A. Romero was not around to convince them otherwise).

Fantastic joke, but I’m not convinced of that at all. People of that time were eager to buy into supernatural explanations for that which they did not understand. As I’ve said in earlier debates with you, I do not reject the importance of religion. I think religion was an extremely important part of the development of the human mind. I actually believe that science owes alot to religion, because religion caused the human mind to contemplate bigger things, things beyond the pragmatic everyday survival needs of the hunter/gatherer.

Quote
Something as simple as a missing body alone would not have been able to convince them all that Jesus had returned - especially not a pragmatist like Thomas, who said "Unless I see the nail prints in His hand, and put my finger where the spear pierced his side, I will NOT believe!"

Again, this is dependent upon the gospels being the truth, and Acts being the truth. I know you are certain they are. I am not. I accept them as religious doctrine. So call me Thomas, until I see it, I won’t believe either. According to virtually every Christian I have talked to, I am going to burn in hell for using the reason that God gave me.
  
Quote
So again, if not a Resurrection, then WHAT created a movement that would ultimately change the ancient world forever?

Well that’s a pretty simple answer: BELIEF in a resurrection. Are you saying that older religions that believed in resurrection were mistaken but that that the early Christians were not?
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2012, 09:32:39 PM »


Every person interested in examining the concept of damnation and salvation with a modern interpretation should read INFERNO by LARRY NIVEN and JERRY POURNELLE.  This is a wonderful book of speculative fiction that you won't soon forget and likely will reread and reread. 


I have not read that one, but they are a VERY strong writing team.  I'll have to check that one out.
You'll be glad you did.   Smile
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2012, 09:49:00 PM »

As always, friend James, a very well thought out and thought provoking rebuttal.  I thoroughly enjoy these conversations with you.  I really don't want to write another dissertation for you tonight, because writing all this is keeping me from writing on my actual book that I hope to publish! (Well, that and the incredible two part episode of NCIS that was on tonight!)

Really briefly - Mark's commentary uses the phrase "young man," but the other gospels refer to angels. Throughout Scripture angels appear unrecognized in human form.  And, while it is generally thought that Mark predates the other gospels (I'm not 100% sure that it does, but I'll accept that for the sake of argument!), nearly all scholars agree that the very end of Mark does not. From 16:8 onward, does not appear in the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts.  It appears that Mark's original ending may have been lost, and the last few verses (9-20 in most Bibles) tacked on later based on the other Gospel accounts.  Now, considering that it is very likely all three Synoptic gospels were composed within the same decade, the difference in details is not as significant as if the accounts were written 30-40 years apart. And, oddly enough, the account that resembles Mark the most is John's, which was written LAST of all - about 60 years after the crucifixion and 30 years after the Synoptics Gospels, by the Apostle John during his final years.

  A few examples of the kind of archeology I mentioned - the Tubingen scholars unanimously asserted that John could not have been written before about 180 AD because that kind of "advanced Christology" did not exist in the First Century Church.  Yet the Rylands Papyrus Fragment, discovered in the 1920's and dated in the 1960's, is part of a copy of John's work that is firmly dated to about 120 AD.  It was discovered in the Egyptian desert over 900 miles from Ephesus, where John wrote his Gospel (we have that bit of info from the writings of Polycarp, who knew John as an old man).  For the gospel to have been copied and circulated that far would probably involve a span of about 15-20 years - which pushes the date for the writing of John's gospel back to the tail end of the First Century, which is when the church said it was written all along.  So the Tubingen scholars were off by almost a century!

  As far as miracles go - any medical doctor who has practiced for a decent amount of time can tell you stories of "clinical miracles" as they call them - patients who should have died but didn't, diseases that should not have gotten better that did, and tumors that simply disappear overnight.  This world is brimming with events that have absolutely no scientific explanation, but are documented and known to have occurred.  So can we conclusively, absolutely say that miracles NEVER happen?

  One other thing - I hear a lot about dying and rising Messiahs in various pagan religions, but every time I have looked into them I find that the differences with the Christian narrative are far greater than the similarities.  Christianity alone has a contemporary historical figure who was seen and known by those who recorded the accounts rising from the dead.  Other legends, like those of Osiris and Mithras, deal with shadowy figures who lived - if they lived at all - centuries before the chronicles of their experiences were written.
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2012, 11:35:22 AM »

Quote
Really briefly - Mark's commentary uses the phrase "young man," but the other gospels refer to angels. Throughout Scripture angels appear unrecognized in human form.  And, while it is generally thought that Mark predates the other gospels (I'm not 100% sure that it does, but I'll accept that for the sake of argument!), nearly all scholars agree that the very end of Mark does not. From 16:8 onward, does not appear in the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts.  It appears that Mark's original ending may have been lost, and the last few verses (9-20 in most Bibles) tacked on later based on the other Gospel accounts.  Now, considering that it is very likely all three Synoptic gospels were composed within the same decade, the difference in details is not as significant as if the accounts were written 30-40 years apart. And, oddly enough, the account that resembles Mark the most is John's, which was written LAST of all - about 60 years after the crucifixion and 30 years after the Synoptics Gospels, by the Apostle John during his final years.

I don't know the order in which the four gospels were recorded, nor does anybody for that matter. Postulation is the best we have. I'm not sure either, I'm just pointing out that there is a decent consensus in that regard. Whatever the case, I'm guessing that you have never questioned the degree of discrepancy in the resurrection versions then. I consider the assumption that Mark is the older narrative a reasonable one based on the simplicity of the narrative. A part of human nature is to embellish stories over time, and I can't imagine that Christian stories would be different in that regard. The nature of embellishment is that a simpler or more mundane story becomes more fantastic and detailed the further along it goes. The other three versions follow this embellishment tendency pretty well.

Quote
A few examples of the kind of archeology I mentioned - the Tubingen scholars unanimously asserted that John could not have been written before about 180 AD because that kind of "advanced Christology" did not exist in the First Century Church.  Yet the Rylands Papyrus Fragment, discovered in the 1920's and dated in the 1960's, is part of a copy of John's work that is firmly dated to about 120 AD.  It was discovered in the Egyptian desert over 900 miles from Ephesus, where John wrote his Gospel (we have that bit of info from the writings of Polycarp, who knew John as an old man).  For the gospel to have been copied and circulated that far would probably involve a span of about 15-20 years - which pushes the date for the writing of John's gospel back to the tail end of the First Century, which is when the church said it was written all along.  So the Tubingen scholars were off by almost a century!

That is a distinct possibility. I appreciate you providing the examples. I looked up the Rylands Fragment. I think I've seen an article or two on it before at some point. The 120 A.D. date seems probable, and I think the most promising determinant is that it was written strongly in the Hadrianic style, which would put it right around then. The 15-20 year span you speak of is a reasonable assumption. I consider the dating of the gospel narratives important to a degree, but I think you will find that most of my critiques are not based on that. I think that's more Cthulu. It could be that the narratives were written by eyewitnesses at the time of their occurence, it could be that they were written primarily a hundred years later or more, or they could have been basic narratives that were embellished over time in an effort to make them more fantastic. All of these are perfectly plausible.

Quote
As far as miracles go - any medical doctor who has practiced for a decent amount of time can tell you stories of "clinical miracles" as they call them - patients who should have died but didn't, diseases that should not have gotten better that did, and tumors that simply disappear overnight.  This world is brimming with events that have absolutely no scientific explanation, but are documented and known to have occurred.  So can we conclusively, absolutely say that miracles NEVER happen?

Okay, we may be arguing semantics here. The word "miracle" often gets applied liberally. If you mean that it describes an event or situation that impossible or difficult to explain in conventional means, then I suppose you could call it a miracle. I'm also willing to accept that there may be a supernatural influence of some kind, but I don't commit to anything I cannot see for myself or quantify in some way. Whatever the case, then these things happen. However, clinical miracles do not equal the idea of Lazarus being raised after four days of death. Given the embellishment tendency that I spoke of earlier, I find it perfectly plausible that the Lazarus story, if founded on a real event, would be stretched into four days very easily. Clearly you do not entertain that notion, but I do.

Quote
One other thing - I hear a lot about dying and rising Messiahs in various pagan religions, but every time I have looked into them I find that the differences with the Christian narrative are far greater than the similarities.  Christianity alone has a contemporary historical figure who was seen and known by those who recorded the accounts rising from the dead.  Other legends, like those of Osiris and Mithras, deal with shadowy figures who lived - if they lived at all - centuries before the chronicles of their experiences were written.



Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 12, 2012, 12:44:59 PM »


 I consider the assumption that Mark is the older narrative a reasonable one based on the simplicity of the narrative.



Historical analysis of documents is FAR more complicated than this.  One common method is linguistic analysis, where spoken language experts analyze the vocabulary, grammar and writing style of the author.

Such analysis has been done on a lot of the documents you guys are discussing, and while these things are never 100% "certain" (what in life is, anyway?), the conclusions Indy mentions are widely held.  That alone does not make it true, of course, and also of course that does not mean "universally" held.  I'm not going to make the 'consensus = right' argument any day of the week.

But my point is that these things have been studied at GREAT length and the pieces of the puzzle and conclusions drawn from them are nowhere near as simplistic and some of the discussion in this thread makes it seem.

A LOT of people with the agenda to disprove even the existence of Jesus have applied their craft to these documents.  Almost all have concluded the gist of what Indy is saying about the dating and importance of the documents. 

Quote

 A part of human nature is to embellish stories over time, and I can't imagine that Christian stories would be different in that regard.



This is true, but it applies FAR more to oral traditions than written word.  This is why it was written down in the first place.

Quote

The nature of embellishment is that a simpler or more mundane story becomes more fantastic and detailed the further along it goes. The other three versions follow this embellishment tendency pretty well.




Again, the problem is that critical analysis, even by skeptics, reveals several key points that cannot be ignored:

(1) The embellishments that you mention take time to become "canon" if I may use that term.  In other words, if you tell me a common story, and I repeat it with embellished details, my version does not 'take over' yours overnight.  These spreading rates are fairly well known, at least to the degree that minimum / maximum limits can reasonably be placed on just how different a story should be in a given geographic region in a given period of time.

You've studied advanced statistics, so you know the math behind this type of analysis.  These are not "guesses," but based on data. 

(2) The differences between the Gospels are minor on a scale defined by the magnitude of the story they relate.  We can quabble over which day of the week something happened or what someone was wearing or where they were sitting, etc.  Those kinds of detailed embellishments spread quickly.

A dead guy rising from the dead and being witnessed by a BUNCH of people in a fairly geographically diverse region (given travel rates of the day) is not something that told once grows fast.  The level of skepticism, disbelieve and abject fear (for the tellers) prevent rapid spreading.

On major points, the scholarly conclusion is that they are far more alike than different.  SOMETHING happened in the Jewish community during the adult life of the man Jesus, and one version of it was recorded. 

(3) Is there a competing version?  If you acknowledge Jesus lived and there was something even remotely remarkable occurring during his life, whether it was him or not, is there ANY evidence of it being something other than as recorded in the Gospels?  Do you discount eyewitness testimony outright, or only in the face of other competing versions of the same history.

In other words, what we have is what we have.  In the absence of any other evidence contradicting the Gospel accounts (at least the historical facets of these accounts), you are no more justified by reason to reject them than I am to accept them. 

(4) Finally, Paul had no motivation to become complicit in the embellishment process.  His was a TOTAL conversion. 

Here's an interesting presentation regarding the existence of Paul with some additional remarks concerning evidence for his greater ministry.

If one rejects the historical significance of the Gospels, Paul remains a problem; Luke's version of the story is just too similar to be assigned on the basis of general acceptance and embellishment.

Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #55 on: April 12, 2012, 03:53:34 PM »

Quote
In other words, what we have is what we have.  In the absence of any other evidence contradicting the Gospel accounts (at least the historical facets of these accounts), you are no more justified by reason to reject them than I am to accept them.

About the only thing I truly agree with you on is that neither of us is any more justified in either accepting or rejecting the gospels, or any degree in between, than the other. But I would say that there is both evidence for and against the veracity of the gospels, and too many holes to know the true story. Therefore, I am driven by reason to not accepting them based on a simple rule of not accepting extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof. I don't truly reject them outright either, I simply reject the interpretations and distortions of them by human beings and their emotional limitations.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #56 on: April 12, 2012, 05:15:38 PM »

And that's a reasonable conclusion, albeit a different one than mine . . . and therefore wrong!  Wink BounceGiggle

Seriously, though, may I pose one more question?

Jesus had four brothers whose names are recorded in the Gospels.  (Half brothers or adopted brothers, depending if you are Catholic or Protestant).  Anyway, all the Gospel narratives agree that his brothers were very skeptical of His ministry and His claims.  Yet one of them, James, after the Resurrection, becomes an outspoken Christian, a "pillar of the church," according to Paul, and a martyr, according to Josephus. Another, Jude, writes a remarkable short letter near the end of the church decrying the influence of false teachers and urging the audience to "contend once for all" their faith in Jesus as God and Messiah.

  These guys knew Jesus better than anyone.  They grew up with him.  They most likely shared a room with him. Like brothers through the ages, they would have spent more time in His company than anyone else in His life.  And at least two of them became convinced He was the Son of God.

  What would it take for YOU to believe that your brother was the Son of God?

  The only clue we have is from that very early list of eyewitnesses Paul records in I Corinthians 15 - "then He appeared to James, then to all the Apostles."

  The conversion of James is for me an even stronger proof than Paul's conversion that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
ulthar
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 368
Posts: 4168


I AM serious, and stop calling me Shirley


WWW
« Reply #57 on: April 12, 2012, 06:27:40 PM »


About the only thing I truly agree with you on is that neither of us is any more justified in either accepting or rejecting the gospels, or any degree in between, than the other. But I would say that there is both evidence for and against the veracity of the gospels, and too many holes to know the true story. Therefore, I am driven by reason to not accepting them based on a simple rule of not accepting extraordinary claims without extraordinary proof. I don't truly reject them outright either, I simply reject the interpretations and distortions of them by human beings and their emotional limitations.


All fair.

Regarding the emphasized part, however, what if "proof" as you define it cannot exist?

Suppose for a moment that the Gospels are true as written, including the claims of the divinity of Jesus.  Could there be PROOF of this?  Doesn't such proof transcend the testable Laws of the Physical Universe as we know them?

I admire (and agree with) your adherence to the physical laws.  But, they MAY be limiting.  That is, our understanding, our inherent ability to understand, the kind of "proof" needed to "prove" the existence of God the Son may simply not exist.

In this model, are you not preordaining the negative "proof" by demanding such proof fits OUR current models of the physical and historical universe as WE can describe them?

For my part:

I cannot prove the extraordinary claims, but I see no reason to reject them on that basis alone.  Proof is not something I require.  I cannot prove love exists, but I now that I feel something toward my wife and children that is different from what I feel toward other humans.  I cannot prove you perceive "blue" the same way I do, but we can agree that that thing over is "blue."  I cannot prove the sun will come up tomorrow.

I see miracles every day.  Perhaps that's just my interpretation, but I do see things every day that I cannot explain in a "proof" sense.

In fact, even with a very, very deep understanding of the Physical Laws of the Universe and the language of mathematics, I find the very existence of life itself to be quite a miracle.

Logged

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Hathaway:  I noticed you stopped stuttering.
Bodie:      I've been giving myself shock treatments.
Professor Hathaway: Up the voltage.

--Real Genius
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #58 on: April 12, 2012, 07:43:45 PM »

Ulthar - a poet trapped in the body of a scientist! Cheers
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
Allhallowsday
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2280
Posts: 20726


Either he's dead or my watch has stopped!


« Reply #59 on: April 12, 2012, 10:34:11 PM »

Ulthar - a poet trapped in the body of a scientist! Cheers
Or, a madman trapped in the body of scientist!!!   BounceGiggle TeddyR
Jus' kiddin'.   Wink
Logged

If you want to view paradise . . . simply look around and view it!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Special Poll for Easter - WHO WAS JESUS OF NAZARETH? « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.