Jesus in the desert
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2014, 09:17 AM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(21-10-2014 02:14 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 11:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Jesus could have told the story of his desert pilgrimage to followers--one rather simple explanation.

Ah yes, the old person A tells person B who tells person C who tells person D who tells person E who finally writes it down - but it's no longer anything like what person A said... Consider

Or consider this if you would,

Person A rose from the dead and healed Person B. Person B wrote down stuff some years or decades later after telling the stories of what he'd seen hundreds of times (witnessing). If Jesus rose from the dead, isn't that Occam's razor applied well? If Jesus didn't, you can play telephone with the literary criticism you are doing here.

Now no one I know who is a religious student or scholar/PhD denies that the writers of the Koran were people who knew and lived alongside Muhammed. Then again, you can pick apart issues and contradictions in the Koran with a few minutes of effort. Jesus is more threatening to non-believers as a concept and person, I find. Don't you?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(20-10-2014 11:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-10-2014 10:34 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  So Jesus is alone in the desert being tempted by the devil and has this conversation with the Bad Guy . Ok, so who wrote down what was said? How do theists know that these were the exact words Jesus said to the devil? Theists go crazy over each and every little word and treat each word like it's a gold nugget to be weighed and discussed ad nauseam. Yet theists never think about the practicalities of getting the precise words from Jesus' mouth onto a page especially when the guy was supposed to be alone out in the desert.

When I first learned about this story (I was in college at the time) that's the very first thing I thought of. Who was there to record it?

The other "alone story" is the Garden of Gethsemane when he goes out alone while the others are asleep.

To those of you who were at one time believers, did this ever cross your mind?

It has crossed my mind. And I am surprised that no one so far has provided some simple possibilities (assuming text is accurate). Jesus could have told the story of his desert pilgrimage to followers--one rather simple explanation. Moses was both a writer (if you believe Moses wrote some of his five books, I don't think he wrote all their content) and wrote down what he experienced.
So basically we're once again relying on the word of the people who can't get match their accounts.
Unimpressive.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(22-10-2014 09:13 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 12:16 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  All the analysis of the books allegedly written by Moses indicates that they are not nearly as old as the apologists would like to believe. They believe what they believe, because they want to believe.

"Yabut, Bible. Bible says so", while certainly belittling, makes most of the same point.



Why? Why do I need to waste my time disproving a nonfalsifiable belief system for which there is no non-presuppositional evidence? Perhaps I should waste my time disproving leprechauns and unicorns, while I'm at it.

Until someone can give me a good reason to believe in any of those things, I think it's fair to dismiss them as unsubstantiated assertions.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, you'd need a good reason only, but consider this if you would:

Fundies think Moses wrote the Pentateuch circa 1450 BCE. I think Moses died and then Joshua wrote in bits about Moses's death and burial. Others think JDEP wrote the Pentateuch circa 250-ish BCE. Why 250? You know why, I'm sure...

...Because the Septuagint translation of Hebrew to Greek OT scriptures dates to that time. Scholars be they Christian or atheist definitely place the "books of Moses" at 250 BCE along with much of the Hebrew scriptures.

If I accept the later dating for the Hebrew scriptures, I'm still faced with the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in his advent. I'm still faced with the fact that there must have been a historical Jesus because Jewish people of the time - or if you like, some decades later - didn't quickly quash the NT scriptures as apocryphal - Whadda you mean! My grandfather said there never was a Yeshua doing miracles in Jerusalem! and so on.

I'm "stuck" on Jesus and wish you were as well. What changed your mind or were you always an atheist for as long as you can remember?

Thanks.

You know it's odd that you would say that the OT prophecies are a proof of the reality of Jesus when those same authors would scoff at applying those prophecies to him. The bible is an interpretive text, it says whatever you want it to. If it prophesies that Jesus was going to be born of a virgin in Isaiah, then it must have meant Jesus, even if it was referring to something else entirely.

When you recognize that they are playing an interpretation game to con people into believing their version of a story, then their credibility is shot.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(22-10-2014 09:17 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Jesus is more threatening to non-believers as a concept and person, I find. Don't you?

Umm, no.

Matt. 10: 34-36: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
22-10-2014, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2014 12:14 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: Jesus in the desert
(21-10-2014 07:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 12:54 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  But when an "impossible" statement such as the creation of Adam from dust or that of Eve from Adam's rib is a necessary part of your belief, do you brush it aside as hyperbole or believe it despite its impossibility?
Doc

I don't think the impossibility of a statement factors much in how I might understand a passage.

When anyone of us reads the Genesis story, we sort of bring with us some underlying assumptions, that we might not even consciously be aware of.

So a question we might ask when reading the Genesis story is why would this have been written? What sort of questions was it attempting to answer for the community in which the scriptures belonged to.

One answer, I hear quite frequently, is that they were written to quell a sort of desire that many of of us have, to know how we came about, questions that we now turn to science for, and understand through natural history. I reject this view, I don't think this is in fact the reasons for such stories. The question of how we came about is more less one that arises with a sort of privilege, it appeases a certain sort of idle curiosity. This sort of curiosity seemingly doesn't exist among those who live in quite difficult circumstances, where poverty and violence is always around the door.

Like all stories, that attempt to convey something more than just entertainment, the essence is to convey a meaning, a moral understanding of things.

I don’t think the writers of these text were attempting to have us believe that they were filled with some spirit that allowed them to envision life thousands of years prior to their own life, and this spirit showed them how it all came to be.
But rather it’s the writer attempting to convey an underlying meaning for the order and chaos around him, the impact of discerning good and evil, and the creative forces around both, that wreck havoc on relationships with not just the sacred, but with each other.

Quote:Adam's rib is a necessary part of your belief,
I don’t see how this would be a necessity for my beliefs. It might be a necessity of a some atonement theology held by some evangelical churches, which relies on some sort of cosmic transgression that occurred when some guy named Adam 6000 years ago, decided to eat a fruit, in which god had to send his son to restore the balance. But any other view of atonement outside of this one, it’s not a necessity.

Tomasia,

You clearly have not read the Bible in its entirety.

See 2 Tim 3: 16: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

and

2 Peter 1:20, 21: But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

and

Rev.22:8,9: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.


I submit to you that your position is that you only accept those parts of the Bible that you are comfortable with and reject those you are not comfortable with. In essence, you have judged God according to your morals and found him wanting.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like docskeptic's post
22-10-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(22-10-2014 09:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:13 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I don't disagree with what you're saying, you'd need a good reason only, but consider this if you would:

Fundies think Moses wrote the Pentateuch circa 1450 BCE. I think Moses died and then Joshua wrote in bits about Moses's death and burial. Others think JDEP wrote the Pentateuch circa 250-ish BCE. Why 250? You know why, I'm sure...

...Because the Septuagint translation of Hebrew to Greek OT scriptures dates to that time. Scholars be they Christian or atheist definitely place the "books of Moses" at 250 BCE along with much of the Hebrew scriptures.

If I accept the later dating for the Hebrew scriptures, I'm still faced with the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in his advent. I'm still faced with the fact that there must have been a historical Jesus because Jewish people of the time - or if you like, some decades later - didn't quickly quash the NT scriptures as apocryphal - Whadda you mean! My grandfather said there never was a Yeshua doing miracles in Jerusalem! and so on.

I'm "stuck" on Jesus and wish you were as well. What changed your mind or were you always an atheist for as long as you can remember?

Thanks.

You know it's odd that you would say that the OT prophecies are a proof of the reality of Jesus when those same authors would scoff at applying those prophecies to him. The bible is an interpretive text, it says whatever you want it to. If it prophesies that Jesus was going to be born of a virgin in Isaiah, then it must have meant Jesus, even if it was referring to something else entirely.

When you recognize that they are playing an interpretation game to con people into believing their version of a story, then their credibility is shot.

Where did you learn the Bible "is an interpretative text that says anything you wish it to"? Is that in the scriptures? Have you seen my threads about how the Bible says either Jesus rose again or did not? Are two possible choices "anything you want to say"?

If you don't have a real reason for making that statement, can I apply your "logic" to any text? Does the US Constitution say "anything I want it to"? Do the writings of Hitchens and Dawkins say "anything one wants them to?"

Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 02:36 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2014 03:22 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Jesus in the desert
(22-10-2014 02:05 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-10-2014 09:26 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You know it's odd that you would say that the OT prophecies are a proof of the reality of Jesus when those same authors would scoff at applying those prophecies to him. The bible is an interpretive text, it says whatever you want it to. If it prophesies that Jesus was going to be born of a virgin in Isaiah, then it must have meant Jesus, even if it was referring to something else entirely.

When you recognize that they are playing an interpretation game to con people into believing their version of a story, then their credibility is shot.

Where did you learn the Bible "is an interpretative text that says anything you wish it to"? Is that in the scriptures? Have you seen my threads about how the Bible says either Jesus rose again or did not? Are two possible choices "anything you want to say"?

If you don't have a real reason for making that statement, can I apply your "logic" to any text? Does the US Constitution say "anything I want it to"? Do the writings of Hitchens and Dawkins say "anything one wants them to?"

Thanks.

Every person that picks up the bible creates their own interpretation of it. (40,000 denominations can't be wrong!) Here's an interpretation that explains quite succinctly that Paul and the other disciples simply had visions of Jesus' resurrection, no one really saw him at all.

The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Appearances

They mention that they have visions in the bible, also the first gospel of Mark doesn't even have an account of Jesus rising again, it was put into the later gospels to "sex up" the resurrection mythos.

You're welcome to apply any interpretation to anything you read, whether I; or anyone, believe it or not depends on the evidence you bring to support your interpretation.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(21-10-2014 12:54 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  But when an "impossible" statement such as the creation of Adam from dust or that of Eve from Adam's rib is a necessary part of your belief, do you brush it aside as hyperbole or believe it despite its impossibility?


I don't think I believe in impossibility as you might. You might believe any supernatural occurrence is impossible, while I might just believe it to be unlikely. And as such there are things that I believe in the bible that are unlikely, and yet true. And I don't believe these things to be true because it's necessary that I do, as if the only reason I don't believe these things, is because I'm worried I might become a non-believer, this sort of issue doesn't exist for me.

And lastly unlikelihood or impossibly isn't a factor in why I view a statement as hyperbolic, just as it likely wouldn't be the case for you in deciding when someone is expressing something hyperbolically. As I previously stated I don't apply a different rule in understanding language as used in the Bible, than I do anywhere else, such in reading post here, in communicating with my friends, and reading a novel, poem, the dialogue in films, etc....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Jesus in the desert
(22-10-2014 04:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-10-2014 12:54 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  But when an "impossible" statement such as the creation of Adam from dust or that of Eve from Adam's rib is a necessary part of your belief, do you brush it aside as hyperbole or believe it despite its impossibility?


I don't think I believe in impossibility as you might. You might believe any supernatural occurrence is impossible, while I might just believe it to be unlikely. And as such there are things that I believe in the bible that are unlikely, and yet true. And I don't believe these things to be true because it's necessary that I do, as if the only reason I don't believe these things, is because I'm worried I might become a non-believer, this sort of issue doesn't exist for me.

But why do you believe those things? You have no basis for believing them.

Quote:And lastly unlikelihood or impossibly isn't a factor in why I view a statement as hyperbolic, just as it likely wouldn't be the case for you in deciding when someone is expressing something hyperbolically. As I previously stated I don't apply a different rule in understanding language as used in the Bible, than I do anywhere else, such in reading post here, in communicating with my friends, and reading a novel, poem, the dialogue in films, etc....

I seriously doubt that is true. Re-read what you wrote.

You almost certainly have different criteria when evaluating the credibility of different sources.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2014, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2014 04:45 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus in the desert
(22-10-2014 12:08 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Tomasia,

You clearly have not read the Bible in its entirety.

See 2 Tim 3: 16: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness........


These few verses you quoted mean what exactly? How are you suggesting they be understood? These mean certain verses can't be understand as hyperbolic of metaphorical? That all verses should be taken as literal?

So when we get scriptures that refer to Jesus as a Lamb, we should understand this to mean he was literally a lamb?

And what is that you believe "God-breathed" means, the term is understood to mean god-inspired, and is translated this way in several other versions of the bible. But clearly you think it means some particular thing, and I would like to hear what this is.

Quote:I submit to you that your position is that you only accept those parts of the Bible that you are comfortable with and reject those you are not comfortable with. In essence, you have judged God according to your morals and found him wanting.

There are plenty of passages that I find uncomfortable but still accept. In fact one of my gripes with fundies is how they often attempt to reinterpret uncomfortable passages, like Jepatha's daughter, or the Psalms about smashing children against the rock, to absolve them of their violence. I'd even argue that in fact I accept more uncomfortable passages than your typical self proclaimed literalist. And I despise children's bibles, lol, because of how rosey they make it all appear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: