What is Digg?133 Comments
- Indyanna, on 10/11/2007, -7/+62I'd read that Thomas Jefferson did something like this - basically removing any references to the supernatural from the Bible - and that he was a Deist. It would have been interesting to know what he would have said to what is referred to as the "Trilemma," first proposed by C.S. Lewis. This is also from wikipedia:
In the book Mere Christianity, Lewis famously criticized the idea that Jesus was merely a human being, albeit a great moral teacher:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." (Lewis 1952, pp. 43)
According to the argument, most people are willing to accept Jesus Christ as a great moral teacher, but the Gospels record that Jesus made many claims to divinity, either explicitly — ("I and the father are one." John 10:30; when asked by the High priest whether he was the Son of God, Jesus replied "It is as you said" Matthew 26:64) — or implicitly, by assuming authority only God could have ("the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" Matthew 9:6). Lewis said there are three options:
1. Jesus was telling falsehoods and knew it, and so he was a liar.
2. Jesus was telling falsehoods but believed he was telling the truth, and so he was insane.
3. Jesus was telling the truth, and so he was divine.
Lewis’s argument was later expanded by the Christian apologist Josh McDowell (in his book More Than a Carpenter). (McDowell 2001) The term "trilemma" (which Lewis did not use) is often used to refer to this argument. Although widely repeated in Christian apologetic literature, it has been largely ignored by professional theologians and biblical scholars.[1]
Lewis's trilemma appeared at a time when secular scholars, such as David Friedrich Strauss, had portrayed Jesus' miracles and resurrection as myths. The concept that Jesus was not God but a wise man had gained ground in academic circles. The trilemma opposes the idea that Jesus was not divine, without relying on miracles for proof. In accepting the premise that Jesus had claimed divinity, he contradicted a viewpoint, popularized by H. G. Wells in his Outline of History, that Jesus had made no such claim. - AnteChronos, on 10/11/2007, -9/+42C.S. Lewis's argument makes a very obvious logical fallacy. It implies that a crazy person can't be a great moral teacher, which is a clear ad homonym fallacy. If a crazy person says that the sky is blue, they're absolutely correct, crazy or not. Likewise, if a crazy person says that you should love your neighbor, that's a sound moral stance, no matter if the person saying it is crazy or not.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33FTA - chapter 2, verse 5
"blessed are the geeks, for they shall inherit the earth." - Voltagensis, on 10/11/2007, -12/+32lol christianity
- peregrine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17You also have to put in the possibility that the church added the parts about Jesus saying he is divine. The church modified the bible numerous times. And in its early history who knows what could have been added to make Jesus look better in the eyes of the people.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18It also assumes that the Bible is true. What if Jesus never claimed to be God, and that only came later when people thought he was such a great moral teacher that they couldn't imagine he could have been anything but God in flesh. Have to remember, Jesus didn't write the Bible, he just starred in the second half.
- Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Its kind of funny to even bother with this. Why bother manipulating a religious book about someone to conform to your way of thinking with no other basis than the fact that you are guessing how he should have been. The fact is, if your going to be picky about what the Bible said, you might as well just call off the whole thing as unreliable and not make up conspiracies on who he really was.
- g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11Uh... It's "ad hominem"; ignore what the digg spell checker says. Someone needs to give that thing a proper education.
- Chaostician, on 10/11/2007, -5/+134. He didn't really say all the things the Bible claims
- g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I think the problem with Lewis' argument is that he's assuming that all the statements attributed to Jesus in the gospels were (a) actually made by Jesus and (b) were provided with enough context that we can understand his statements as they were meant to be understood. I think there is a lot for Jesus to be a good moral teacher, and not a lunatic or evil opportunist, if we consider that the gospels were written several decades after Jesus' death. The gospel writers managed to preserve some of Jesus' teachings but for all their well meaning efforts ended up filling in a lot of the gaps in their knowledge with words of their own devising. IANAT (I Am Not A Theologian), but that's my take on it.
- SPThom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Possibility #4: What's been written about him (including the gospels) have been embellished, and he didn't actually say those things that would've made him a "madman".
- movingtobc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13"I and the father are one." John 10:30.
Why are people taking this literally?
My girlfriend and I are one too. To be one with someone, is to show your love and complete devotion. A mother and her children are one. A man who loves God is one with God.
When you start taking metaphors literally like "the sky has fallen", then there's a lot of room for misinterpretation. - kineticarl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Because not being a Christian means you could only be an atheist..... lol at myopic people.
- bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
- GeezerD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'm glad to read this article, though I learned about it years ago, in seminary! The article brings a lot of ignorance to the surface about the 'Bible." I was required to learn Koine Greek (the language of the New Testament) prior to entering seminary, to allow us to study NT texts in their original language. The average christian, and certainly the fundamentalist christian, is painfully ignorant about the "Bible", and would be scandalized if they knew the facts about its history, severe textual problems, and incompleteness. On this list, however, Christians do not argue with information, but belief. If the truth were to be told, the more information they had, the shakier their belief would be. And that's way too scary for most of them.
- phoenix78, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6And then came the Dead Sea Scrolls to show us some of the oldest dated text. You tell me one ancient text over 2000 years old that there is an original of...or that doesn't have variations between copies. But "variation" doesn't mean "and he went for a stroll on the shore of the sea" all of a sudden means "and then he walked on top of the water and they thought he was a ghost" Texts that were grossly mistranslated were burned. I think you underestimate the zealous nature of ancient scribes and monks.
- GeezerD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8"Those that remove from or add to the Bible will be punished by God."
Again, a comment that shows the person to be ignorant. Obviously representative of their religious point of view: ignorant and punitive. - mordeci, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Exactly. There were 40 known historians in Jerusalem during the time that Jesus supposedly existed and not one of them ever made any mention of any of the things that supposedly happened in the bible. All the followers, all the miracles, all the ridiculous, outlandish, idiotic things that were supposed to have happened and not one single historian thought that any of it was worth mentioning?
A book without any outside corroboration at all is FICTION. - maiku00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6exactly. 2000 year-old hear-say is HARDLY evidence at all.
- apologeticus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It was called "The Jesus Seminar" and the reason you can't find much on it is that it has been largely discredited even among skeptical Bible scholars. N.T. Wright leveled a devastating critique of their work.
- goykasi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Whats so special about the cheesemakers.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5How do you know that Jesus died and then resurrected. Such extravagant claims need extravagant support and as such surely the testimonies of people lived 2000 years ago cannot fill these shoes. Αncient writings are teemed with such claims -and at times even more extreme ones- but the contemporary logic regards them as myths, why should this story be different, apart from indoctrinated inertia?
- stewieh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Saying the sky is blue and giving, and exemplifying, moral teachings are completely two different things. One is stating a fact, whereas the other is a product of your character and wisdom. You have to understand moral truths in other to give and live it. So if Jesus says, love your neighbor, and acts on it better than anyone else in history, and at the same time says, I am the Way and the Life, then he is either crazy, lying, or telling the truth.
- GeezerD, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8This is exactly what christian scholars do: they manipulate their translations to conform to their doctrine. The "Bible" is extensively manipulated, especially by fundamentalists. The texts from which the "Bible" is translated are incomplete and patched together. There is no single complete text for the "Bible," and the variations are enormous.
- hiPpymIck, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7reminds me of the riddle of Epicurus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkJJidVjGU - rarson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Uh... homonym is a word, which is probably why it doesn't catch it.
- MasterInsan0, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7No one seems to acknowledge a very possible, and in my opinion probable option: Jesus was a very smart man, and knew how to get the people worked up. After all, it was either a freak accident that people still talk about him hundreds of years later, or a very intelligent scheme. He had his followers write things about him that would seem fantastical, but he also spread convincing moral teachings, to make himself seem larger than life. Wiser than the oldest sage, more powerful than the strongest king, stuff like that. He made it seem believable that he was the Son of God--both Human and Divine.
This does not exclude the idea of Jesus actually being the Son of God, though. I mean, the offspring of a deity would be pretty smart, and would probably have some kind of divine foresight, right? - bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6if jesus and god are one, why does jesus ask why god had forsaken him when he was on the cross?
- jmchez, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I've come to very many things Jefferson did based on his personal behavior. I'm not talking about demanding modern behavior from an 18th century man, but Jefferson violated the code of ethics of anyone at any era.
He was a political backstabber who payed newspapers editors to print lies and innuendo against Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, all the while pretending to be their friends when talking to them face to face. Unlike Hamilton or Adams, he owned slaves, yet he criticized them both as being elitists and not friends of the "common man". Also, unlike many of the founding fathers who, like Washington, freed their slaves, Jefferson never did and instead impose himself on his attractive female slaves.
All in all, the man was an exceedingly smart and highly cultured snake in the grass who could write exceedingly good prose. - jevb007, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4lol internets
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6There was a project a couple of years ago where several hundred historians and theologians read through the New Testament, and marked events and passages on a scale of accuracy (in their expert opinion), and the results pooled. The result was a version of the New Testament with each passage coded according to the estimated probability of accuracy. I can't find any mention of it now (since a couple of weeks I can't seem to find ANYTHING on google any more, they must've truly screwed the algorithm-pooch at google this time), so if anyone knows what that project was called, I'd appreciate a pointer.
Anyway, it seems to me that project was similar to what Jefferson did, but using the best present expertise on the subject. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yes, looking at the Wikipedia entry it seems it wasn't quite as scientific as I'd have hoped. Still, a long ways better than simply assuming the complete truthfulness of the Bible as a starting point.
It's a shame no-one has put together a "Jesus seminar" type project to evaluate the NT from a historical accuracy and scientific probability POV, with historians, archaeologists, theologians and any other scientists of relevant fields (physics?). It'd be extremely controversial, of course, but doubtless also extremely interesting. - Indyanna, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Just a friendly suggestion to anyone who is interested in looking into this further - you might want to read The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel. From amazon.com:
The Case for Christ records Lee Strobel's attempt to "determine if there's credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the Son of God." The book consists primarily of interviews between Strobel (a former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune) and biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger. Each interview is based on a simple question, concerning historical evidence (for example, "Can the Biographies of Jesus Be Trusted?"), scientific evidence, ("Does Archaeology Confirm or Contradict Jesus' Biographies?"), and "psychiatric evidence" ("Was Jesus Crazy When He Claimed to Be the Son of God?"). Together, these interviews compose a case brief defending Jesus' divinity, and urging readers to reach a verdict of their own. - Jadart, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7How far backwards we have gone sine the Age of Enlightenment.
Great find. - ninjakoala, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It's sad that these things tend to cycle. In fact the persistence of superstition is, I guess, the single biggest threat against evolutionary teachings. If man does indeed evolve there should be no need for superstition by now - and yet we see the sense-subverting forces on the rise.
Then again: No child is born a theist. (And no, that's not a typo.) - GeezerD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4And?
- GeezerD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The question is flawed to begin with. If you had an interest in knowing, you'd learn Greek, and read the material for yourself.
- g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't know that I'm willing to grant you the notion that every writing and account of Jesus agrees with the others on the issue of Jesus' divinity. The ones that outright contradicted this view were voted off the island, so to speak, but there is some inconsistency even in the texts that remained. I agree with you wholeheartedly that ancient peoples were quite sophisticated and intelligent (my favourite poet is Roman), but I don't think I'm doing them a disservice. Even modern people can get caught up in the belief that an individual is 'divine'. It is also worth noting that life expectancies in those days are not what they are now. There would be relatively few witnesses to his life that were old enough to have an adult understanding of his teachings, literacy rates were lower, communications were more difficult (you couldn't just call up your buddy Fred who saw the whole thing go down), his message had been widely disseminated and maintained through word of mouth for decades before the gospels were written, and these gospels were copied and passed around for just shy of three hundred years before they were voted on and gathered together to form "the bible". There was a great deal of opportunity for politics to shape the way Jesus has been portrayed ever since.
- TruthElixirX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You can order the mat Borders and Walden Books, both. They're still in print. Not rare, just not very many being produced.
- joshpowell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Exactly. They're in stock at Amazon :P
Not rare at all. - BarneyF, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6The results the Jesus sminar produced have been challenged in detail, but you don't have the dig very deep to see that a lot of words and deeds attributed to Jesus were made up after the fact - for example, Matthew & Luke totally rewrote a lot of the Gospel according to Mark.
I think Jesus was not a myth but a real person, but only because Mark portays him as such an obnoxious wierdo - no one would INVENT him as a God. - Bogie22, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Crazy people who think they can come back from the dead never actually manage to do it.
- GeezerD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2OK. I decided to get the book and read it. When I started to look at the reviews, I am appaled to learn that the only people interviewed are evangelical christians. When I looked deeper, I saw the same kind of dishonest thinking others think is so intellectually honest. I spent four years in seminary, learning from many believing christian scholars. None of them were as dishonest at the questions posed in the above post. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
- stewieh, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It's called the Jesus Seminar. "Several hundred" is a bit of a stretch. And "only about 14 of the fellows are leading figures in New Testament scholarship" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar).
- bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3except GeezerD, that there is historical evidence... it's nice you've found some hardcore site. but why don't you remove yourself from the religious propaganda on both sides and study actual history from that period. you're almost a big a sucker for believing that site as the people who believe in the bible are.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson - mattlohkamp, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5And every line shall start with 'and'
And there shall be no line which shall not start in the word 'and'
And even if a line should start with a word other then 'and', the next line shall certainly start with 'and'
And and and and and and and and and and. - Pixellore, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Historians usually write history in the way they want it to be remembered.
- polyphonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2dugg for using a homonym of hominem
- kylebrothert, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I like your thinking (though I disagree). Honestly, I can't even remember what the original digg post was about. Man, this comment system goes on forever.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 129 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is