Why didn't Yeshua write anything?

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/when-was-the-hebrew-bible-written/

This is, of course, a single quote from a single source, but the implications, supported by others in this and other publications, lead the non-minimalist to conclude that the captives brought their literacy with them to Babylon, and returned later with a much more wide-spread literacy, encouraged and brought about by the priestly class, in order to preserve their Jewishness in exile:  through the written word.

I understand that, especially since Aramaic had developed into a lingua franca for the entire Levant, and that Greek and, to a much lesser extent, Latin were, the languages of officialdom, Jews were heavily involved in commerce.  There's no reason to hold that they were largely illiterate in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek.

Illiterate Jesus is something the non-minimalist cannot bear to let go of.  I don't buy it.  I don't buy that he didn't read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue, and I don't buy neither he nor any other Jewish kid was bar mitzvahed in the Roman Levant.

This second article you posted is much more balanced, it has some opposing points of view in the post that disagree with the conclusions, and references some scholarship by others at the bottom of the post.  I suggest that you engage with that material as well before you take this ball (that literacy was a common thing in those days) and run with it.  

Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue?  What evidence do you have for that?  The text of the NT doesn't say anything about this.  

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

"Oh Lord God, deliver us from this prison, almost as it were, of paper, pen and ink, and of a crooked, broken, scattered and imperfect language" - Also said by Joseph Smith (letter to William W. Phelps, Nov. 27, 1832). Just sayin'.

 

And yet that language, coupled with the Spirit of revelation, is eonough to thoroughly furnish the saints of God unto eternal life. A "broken, scattered and imperfect language" is transformed into a powerfully effective instrument of spiritual communication when it's combined with the illuminating power of the Holy Ghost. Hence the Book of Mormon's power to transform lives and bring men closer to God.

By the way, I don't think it's fitting for anyone to lament the imperfections of the Einglish language until, like Shakespeare, he or she has become and expert in every aspect of its usage.

Edited June 26, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

57 minutes ago, USU78 said:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/when-was-the-hebrew-bible-written/

This is, of course, a single quote from a single source, but the implications, supported by others in this and other publications, lead the non-minimalist to conclude that the captives brought their literacy with them to Babylon, and returned later with a much more wide-spread literacy, encouraged and brought about by the priestly class, in order to preserve their Jewishness in exile:  through the written word.

I understand that, especially since Aramaic had developed into a lingua franca for the entire Levant, and that Greek and, to a much lesser extent, Latin were, the languages of officialdom, Jews were heavily involved in commerce.  There's no reason to hold that they were largely illiterate in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek.

Illiterate Jesus is something the non-minimalist cannot bear to let go of.  I don't buy it.  I don't buy that he didn't read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue, and I don't buy neither he nor any other Jewish kid was bar mitzvahed in the Roman Levant.

Do literacy rates among the first European settlements in the Americas tell us anything about literacy in 21st century US? 600 years is a long time.

[USU78]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This second article you posted is much more balanced, it has some opposing points of view in the post that disagree with the conclusions, and references some scholarship by others at the bottom of the post.  I suggest that you engage with that material as well before you take this ball (that literacy was a common thing in those days) and run with it.  

Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue?  What evidence do you have for that?  The text of the NT doesn't say anything about this.  

Luke 4:16-21:

Quote

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.  And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.  And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Hmmmm.

[Honorentheos]

I think Gray's comment earlier on about a modal Christ (where the Christ one finds is dependent upon the Christ sought) is informative. Once one goes the direction of historical evidence and examining the text for clues about the historical Jesus, the parsimonious answer to why Jesus did not write was as noted earlier. He wasn't likely intent on founding a new religion and viewed the end of the corrupted world as very near so there seems to be limited to no value in doing so. Looking to the Jesus of the Gospels, the one who may or may not have done the things described in them including reading scripture in proclamation that He fulfilled it, with the expectation they collectively tell us about the historical figure and his environment in a transparent way is mixing Jesus modes, IMO. One is trying to merge the historical Jesus with the Jesus of Christian worship. It will be messy and confuse the issue.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Honorentheos

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Luke 4:16-21:

Hmmmm.

Thanks, I'd forgotten what that reference as I was thinking about the earlier passage in Luke 2 when he was twelve.  

Interesting that when the author of Luke crafts his message, that he omits Mark 6:2-6 (Jesus' rejection in Nazareth) and replaces it with this narrative of his announcement of a Gentile mission and is then rejected by the Jews.  

Luke's story diverges from the other Synoptics at this point, I think he's got a theological perspective here, but the key point for Luke isn't literacy for Jesus.  

[hagoth7]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

...Interesting that when the author of Luke crafts his message, that he omits Mark 6:2-6 (Jesus' rejection in Nazareth) and replaces it with this narrative of his announcement of a Gentile mission and is then rejected by the Jews.  

Luke's story diverges from the other Synoptics at this point, I think he's got a theological perspective here, but the key point for Luke isn't literacy for Jesus.  

I don't see it as a divergence of the narrative. At all.

I see the reading described in Luke (and excluded in Mark) simply offering insight into *why* he was rejected in Nazareth. 

In part: human nature. Crabpot. Pride.

Opening chapter in John. 

[Ginger Snaps]

I don't buy that he was illiterate. Again, the passage in 3 Nephi 23 would certainly suggest he was able to read. 

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I don't see it as a divergence of the narrative. At all.

I see the reading described in Luke (and excluded in Mark) simply offering insight into *why* he was rejected in Nazareth. 

In part: human nature. Crabpot. Pride.

Opening chapter in John. 

Different meanings, Mark is about a rejection of Jesus by his home town people, possibly because Mark was trying to say that Jesus wasn't attentive to blessing his home town people and was ostracized by them because of it.  

Luke seems to be implying that Jews and Gentiles were at odds, I think this may have been influenced by Luke's writing to a Gentile audience as there isn't evidence of a sharp divide between Jew and Gentile at the time the author of Luke was writing.  

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, USU78 said:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/when-was-the-hebrew-bible-written/

This is, of course, a single quote from a single source, but the implications, supported by others in this and other publications, lead the non-minimalist to conclude that the captives brought their literacy with them to Babylon, and returned later with a much more wide-spread literacy, encouraged and brought about by the priestly class, in order to preserve their Jewishness in exile:  through the written word.

I understand that, especially since Aramaic had developed into a lingua franca for the entire Levant, and that Greek and, to a much lesser extent, Latin were, the languages of officialdom, Jews were heavily involved in commerce.  There's no reason to hold that they were largely illiterate in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek.

Illiterate Jesus is something the non-minimalist cannot bear to let go of.  I don't buy it.  I don't buy that he didn't read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue, and I don't buy neither he nor any other Jewish kid was bar mitzvahed in the Roman Levant.

I don't have a dog in this fight but just from a logic point of view, your position is much stronger than hope's

Hope is missing that point and arguing from his belief that the Bible is not literal, and therefore concluding that historical references to Jesus are not reliable history.  Your point is strong and quite different than what he is arguing against.  The fact is that literacy is required to be considered a "rabbi" and teach in the synagogue (I think- you know that better than I do) and therefore we can conclude that the historical Jesus was in fact literate.

We are not arguing about whether or not Jesus existed here, but your argument is "Since Jesus existed AND was bar mitzvahed AND taught in the synagogue, (assuming he existed) THEN he had to be literate.

He is missing your argument entirely and trying to make a point which would irrelevant even if he was successful in making it.

His point:  The Bible is not good history

Your point: If he was bar mitzvahed and taught in the synagogue, he must have been literate at least to some degree.

Major difference.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

And yet that language, coupled with the Spirit of revelation, is eonough to thoroughly furnish the saints of God unto eternal life. A "broken, scattered and imperfect language" is transformed into a powerfully effective instrument of spiritual communication when it's combined with the illuminating power of the Holy Ghost. Hence the Book of Mormon's power to transform lives and bring men closer to God.

By the way, I don't think it's fitting for anyone to lament the imperfections of the Einglish language until, like Shakespeare, he or she has become and expert in every aspect of its usage.

I dunno if ya unnastan what I'm sayin.

 

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

Do literacy rates among the first European settlements in the Americas tell us anything about literacy in 21st century US? 600 years is a long time.

Zaktly.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

I think Gray's comment earlier on about a modal Christ (where the Christ one finds is dependent upon the Christ sought) is informative. Once one goes the direction of historical evidence and examining the text for clues about the historical Jesus, the parsimonious answer to why Jesus did not write was as noted earlier. He wasn't likely intent on founding a new religion and viewed the end of the corrupted world as very near so there seems to be limited to no value in doing so. Looking to the Jesus of the Gospels, the one who may or may not have done the things described in them including reading scripture in proclamation that He fulfilled it, with the expectation they collectively tell us about the historical figure and his environment in a transparent way is mixing Jesus modes, IMO. One is trying to merge the historical Jesus with the Jesus of Christian worship. It will be messy and confuse the issue.

Well hello again, and oh gosh, as usual.     He's here again!  Welcomish!

The purpose of religion is to find a hermeneutic which gives your life meaning whether it is saving the whales, World Peace, income equality, or getting to the Celestial Kingdom.

It ain't my job in life to find what's important to anyone else but me, and so that quest is totally subjective.

Here, read this, written by an atheist on death's door,  who gets it.  http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

There are no facts only interpretations.  You act as if history derives from a time machine in which all human motivations are automatically entered by neural interfaces worn by the participants so that ever nuance of thought is recorded perfectly with every event to show us the world exactly "as it was in reality". and positivism is the only way to find meaning.  Not so.

So you are missing on two points:

1- the purpose of religion and 

2- the nature of history as non-objective

So yes of course one finds our salvation based on the salvation which is sought.  That is the goal.

The Ideal Human within us teaches us to create meaning in our lives where none exists at first.

That is secularese for the Mormon statement:

Quote

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

(Moroni 10) and that our Human Ideal Being (God) within us creates our world "from matter unorganized"

This works just fine also

Quote

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I really don't have time to fully engage you here again, but I do wish you well in your search.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I'd forgotten what that reference as I was thinking about the earlier passage in Luke 2 when he was twelve.  

Interesting that when the author of Luke crafts his message, that he omits Mark 6:2-6 (Jesus' rejection in Nazareth) and replaces it with this narrative of his announcement of a Gentile mission and is then rejected by the Jews.  

Luke's story diverges from the other Synoptics at this point, I think he's got a theological perspective here, but the key point for Luke isn't literacy for Jesus.  

So now you get that your argument about biblical literacy rates was irrelevant to the story saying Jesus could read, right?

[USU78]

17 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I'd forgotten what that reference as I was thinking about the earlier passage in Luke 2 when he was twelve.  

Interesting that when the author of Luke crafts his message, that he omits Mark 6:2-6 (Jesus' rejection in Nazareth) and replaces it with this narrative of his announcement of a Gentile mission and is then rejected by the Jews.  

Luke's story diverges from the other Synoptics at this point, I think he's got a theological perspective here, but the key point for Luke isn't literacy for Jesus.  

Its very off-handedness lends credibility, not spuriousness.

It's amazing that something like this, on papyrus and not incised or carved into stone, as survived so long:  http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3058

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So now you get that your argument about biblical literacy rates was irrelevant to the story saying Jesus could read, right?

Hmm...  Sort of, not 100% i understand you point.  For the author of Luke, he wasn't trying to prove whether Jesus could read or not, literacy is irrelevant to Luke. 

Hagoth7 is who wanted to use these verses in Luke as proof that Jesus could read and then imply that this proof refutes my point that scholars believe literacy during this time period was very rare. 

Personally, I don't care if Jesus was literate or not. I just shared that most biblical scholars that I've read wouldn't have thought of Jesus as being able to write because of his background, his father's profession and literacy rates during this time and culture.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Its very off-handedness lends credibility, not spuriousness.

It's amazing that something like this, on papyrus and not incised or carved into stone, as survived so long:  http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=3058

Thanks for sharing, thats a cool finding and with Luke and John together for the first time.  Its exciting what new insights are gained from findings like this.  

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Its very off-handedness lends credibility, not spuriousness.

I think the Luke divergence from Mark, a text that he copied most of the structure from, shows that Luke had a different perspective on this point specifically.  I don't think of this as an argument from embarrassment which would add credibility, but I think you're confusing a different theological perspective with this kind of argument.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Edited June 27, 2017 by hope_for_things

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmm...  Sort of, not 100% i understand you point.  For the author of Luke, he wasn't trying to prove whether Jesus could read or not, literacy is irrelevant to Luke. 

Hagoth7 is who wanted to use these verses in Luke as proof that Jesus could read and then imply that this proof refutes my point that scholars believe literacy during this time period was very rare. 

Personally, I don't care if Jesus was literate or not. I just shared that most biblical scholars that I've read wouldn't have thought of Jesus as being able to write because of his background, his father's profession and literacy rates during this time and culture.  

The coherency of the account is all that matters here.  Why dispute it when the account says he was literate?

The internal consistency is all that matters, and whether or not the account is "accurate" is irrelevant- that is UNKNOWABLE.

We take the account on faith and by testimony as we do all scriptures.  It is possible even on your argument that an individual who taught in a synagogue at that time was literate

And even in the account when Jesus was 12 at the time presumably of his Bar Mitzvah in Luke 2:

 

Quote

 

⁴⁶ And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.

⁴⁷ And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

 

Bracketing the question of whether or not this "really happened" which is irrelevant because it is unknowable and a moot point, it says that the doctors were listening and were astonished.  Would they do that to an ignorant illiterate 12 year old??

The STORY is consistent and possible checking the historical facts.  Whether it happened is irrelevant because it is unknowable and we take it on faith.

What the heck is there to argue about??  You yourself say you don't care- so why argue the point and do so poorly as well???  What are you getting out of this?  Telling people you have read up on Biblical criticism?  Ok good for you.  But for Pete's sake think through your arguments before you make them.  

 

PS to other readers- we know each other so I can talk this way to hope I think and he understands it is in the spirit of constructive criticism.  

I hope.  

Edited June 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the Luke divergence from Mark, a text that he copied most of the structure from, shows that Luke had a different perspective on this point specifically.  I don't think of this as an argument from embarrassment which would add credibility, but I think you're confusing a different theological perspective with this kind of argument.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion_of_embarrassment

Background, incidental details lend verisimilitude to a description of an event.  

There's a synagogue:  not inconsistent with archaeology; therefore, no reason to doubt it was there and He went there.

There's an Isaiah scroll:  not inconsistent with archaeology; therefore, no reason to doubt there was one.

He is described as a regular reader of the Law and the Prophets in that there synagogue:  there is nothing in archaeology or logic to compel us to dispute that He was a regular reader of the Law and the Prophets; therefore, no reason to doubt He was onesuch.

He is described as reading aloud from the Isaiah scroll after searching for just the right passage, then offering a brief exposition on that passage; there is nothing in archaeology or logic to compel us to doubt it happened, other than Mark (and not necessarily Q*) fails to mention that detail; therefore, no reason to doubt He did so.

The synagogue, the presence of an Isaiah scroll, regular readers of the Law and the Prophets, and exposition after reading aloud.  These are important details, all entirely consistent with what is known about the period and place, with no tell-tale signs of making stuff up.

Therefore, I don't buy an illiterate Jesus Who can't read, can't write, wasn't bar mitzvahed, and was incapable of making commentary on Isaiah's messianic message.  Your mileage may, of course, vary.

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The coherency of the account is all that matters here.  Why dispute it when the account says he was literate?

The internal consistency is all that matters, and whether or not the account is "accurate" is irrelevant- that is UNKNOWABLE.

We take the account on faith and by testimony as we do all scriptures.  It is possible even on your argument that an individual who taught in a synagogue at that time was literate

And even in the account when Jesus was 12 at the time presumably of his Bar Mitzvah in Luke 2:

I don't think Luke is an "account", its literature.  Its not history by Modern standards at all.  Its a story.  

What do you think is important to "take on faith and by testimony"?   Should we take on faith that these stories are historically accurate?  I personally think that is missing the point.  I think the faith or trust we should give to scripture is not in its historicity, its in the wisdom of the messages that are inspirational and life giving.  Whether Jesus was literate or not is an irrelevant component of this story that I don't believe the author was trying to emphasize and I think is missing the mark with respect to what we can learn from this passage in Luke.  

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Bracketing the question of whether or not this "really happened" which is irrelevant because it is unknowable and a moot point, it says that the doctors were listening and were astonished.  Would they do that to an ignorant illiterate 12 year old??

The STORY is consistent and possible checking the historical facts.  Whether it happened is irrelevant because it is unknowable and we take it on faith.

What the heck is there to argue about??  You yourself say you don't care- so why argue the point and do so poorly as well???  What are you getting out of this?  Telling people you have read up on Biblical criticism?  Ok good for you.  But for Pete's sake think through your arguments before you make them.  

Ok, so we both agree with the irrelevance of this element of the story.  What is Luke trying to tell us with this component of the story that isn't found in Mark or Matthew.  I think we should really focus on the passages unique to Luke in this case because its where he is editorializing an earlier narrative and adding to or changing something that he feels is important.  Perhaps Luke is trying to build up the divinity of Jesus, many scholars believe that Mark (the first gospel) is the lowest Christologically because Jesus becomes divine at his baptism and Luke & Matthew push that divinity back to his birth.  Perhaps Luke is also emphasizing that by twelve yrs Jesus is more than an ordinary child of his age with respect to his abilities.  

I'll be the first to admit that I often argue on these message boards in a very erratic way, many times I'm just spit-balling thoughts as they come to my brain.  I think my comments were in response to the OP, and a plausible explanation for why Jesus didn't write anything down.  

Why do any of us comment on these boards, probably because we like to interact.  I reserve the right to continue to make poorly thought through arguments on this message board.  And I'm cool with you giving me a hard time.  I also reserve the right to throw back your way from time to time as well!  

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Background, incidental details lend verisimilitude to a description of an event.  

There's a synagogue:  not inconsistent with archaeology; therefore, no reason to doubt it was there and He went there.

There's an Isaiah scroll:  not inconsistent with archaeology; therefore, no reason to doubt there was one.

He is described as a regular reader of the Law and the Prophets in that there synagogue:  there is nothing in archaeology or logic to compel us to dispute that He was a regular reader of the Law and the Prophets; therefore, no reason to doubt He was onesuch.

He is described as reading aloud from the Isaiah scroll after searching for just the right passage, then offering a brief exposition on that passage; there is nothing in archaeology or logic to compel us to doubt it happened, other than Mark (and not necessarily Q*) fails to mention that detail; therefore, no reason to doubt He did so.

The synagogue, the presence of an Isaiah scroll, regular readers of the Law and the Prophets, and exposition after reading aloud.  These are important details, all entirely consistent with what is known about the period and place, with no tell-tale signs of making stuff up.

Therefore, I don't buy an illiterate Jesus Who can't read, can't write, wasn't bar mitzvahed, and was incapable of making commentary on Isaiah's messianic message.  Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Actually there are reasons that scholars believe Jesus was likely not literate and why the Luke narrative should be questioned.  I'm not an expert and I couldn't find anything concrete in a quick google search, but I have read some about this in a book or two and I'll try to look them up sometime.  Scholarship has been done on this topic, I'm just not representing it well at this point, sorry about that.  

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think Luke is an "account", its literature.  Its not history by Modern standards at all.  Its a story.  

What do you think is important to "take on faith and by testimony"?   Should we take on faith that these stories are historically accurate?  I personally think that is missing the point.  I think the faith or trust we should give to scripture is not in its historicity, its in the wisdom of the messages that are inspirational and life giving.  Whether Jesus was literate or not is an irrelevant component of this story that I don't believe the author was trying to emphasize and I think is missing the mark with respect to what we can learn from this passage in Luke.  

Ok, so we both agree with the irrelevance of this element of the story.  What is Luke trying to tell us with this component of the story that isn't found in Mark or Matthew.  I think we should really focus on the passages unique to Luke in this case because its where he is editorializing an earlier narrative and adding to or changing something that he feels is important.  Perhaps Luke is trying to build up the divinity of Jesus, many scholars believe that Mark (the first gospel) is the lowest Christologically because Jesus becomes divine at his baptism and Luke & Matthew push that divinity back to his birth.  Perhaps Luke is also emphasizing that by twelve yrs Jesus is more than an ordinary child of his age with respect to his abilities.  

I'll be the first to admit that I often argue on these message boards in a very erratic way, many times I'm just spit-balling thoughts as they come to my brain.  I think my comments were in response to the OP, and a plausible explanation for why Jesus didn't write anything down.  

Why do any of us comment on these boards, probably because we like to interact.  I reserve the right to continue to make poorly thought through arguments on this message board.  And I'm cool with you giving me a hard time.  I also reserve the right to throw back your way from time to time as well!  

Note to TBM's of which I am one:

NOTE: I am explaining this as a secularist, and yes I believe in the Spirit being real- I am simply using another vocabulary to speak to someone who thinks differently than we do.

Dude

You're not getting this.  Of course it is a story of course it's not history.  You are now quibbling because I called it an "account"??  What do you think history is if not "his-STORY" as opposed to someone else's STORY?

Did you read anything I said?

We take it on testimony for the same reason that people decide to be Democrats instead of Republicans or to fight for equality of income instead of going to the Celestial Kindom because they think SUBJECTIVELY that the CK is bunk and income equality is more important.  Yes some go for both- but that's not the point.

What hits people in the gut and they think is important and what makes them happy is THEIR idea and the making them happy part is what we call "testimony"

They get the warm fuzzies fighting for income equality or saving the whales.  They have a feeling deep in their hearts that what they are doing is "TRUE".  Saying something is "true" is no more than saying "I agree"  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

Quote

 

It is worthy of notice that the sentence ‘I smell the scent of violets’ has the same content as the sentence ‘it is true that I smell the scent of violets’. So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. (Frege 1918)

"Truth and falsity are ascribed primarily to propositions. The proposition to which they are ascribed may be either explicitly given or described. Suppose first that it is explicitly given; then it is evident that ‘It is true that Caesar was murdered’ means no more than that Caesar was murdered, and ‘It is false that Caesar was murdered’ means no more than Caesar was not murdered. They are phrases which we sometimes use for emphasis or stylistic reasons, or to indicate the position occupied by the statement in our argument….In the second case in which the proposition is described and not given explicitly we have perhaps more of a problem, for we get statements from which we cannot in ordinary language eliminate the words ‘true’ or ‘false’. Thus if I say ‘He is always right’, I mean that the propositions he asserts are always true, and there does not seem to be any way of expressing this without using the word ‘true’. But suppose we put it thus ‘For all p, if he asserts p, p is true’, then we see that the propositional function p is true is simply the same as p, as e.g. its value ‘Caesar was murdered is true’ is the same as ‘Caesar was murdered’. (Ramsey 1927)"

 

 

 

There is no criteria for saying they are wrong and we are right other than what we personally believe.

And don't give me the "jump off a cliff" argument- the fact that we agree that jumping off a cliff is not wise has nothing to do with truth.  Truth has nothing to do with states of the world, simply states of mind, see below Rorty quote.

So now you are reading all the scholars and take them as speaking the "TRUTH" as much as TBM's think THEIR experts speak the truth.

Fine.  Just know it's no different

Your religion is now "prove it all by evidence" which is just as much religion as "prove it by the spirit"

What's your evidence for "prove it by the evidence?"  It is a philosophy of men just as anything is and one can argue that just as well as anything else.   Here is one such discussion against your religion.  https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

Play around with the terms all you like, and yes you do give me just as good or bad as I give you.  

I know that relativism and scientisim is only relatively true and you take it now as the gospel.  I predict a change in that view.

I can give a long list of very intelligent people who realized as they aged that all the brilliance they showed as youth was bunk, and they totally reverse their positions.  If you want two examples from totally different paths, look up Wittgenstein and Aquinas.  When have you ever before heard that those two had something in common?

Best wishes.

 

 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Thanks for devoting a post to my unbelief.  Bart Ehrman points out a lot of the contradictions in the New Testament in his books.  His website is here: http://www.bartdehrman.com/

His position is that if God wanted us to have his words, why didn't he preserve them?  I wonder about this myself.  The earliest fragment of any of the gospels dates from 2nd century, not contemporaneous to Jesus' life, and there are a lot of important contradictions like where Jesus was born, when did he die, when did he rid the temple of the money changers, etc.  I also have a hard time believing that God could not forgive sins unless Jesus came.  It seems strange to me that we as mortals can forgive one another but God could not without sacrificing his son. 

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Note to TBM's of which I am one:

NOTE: I am explaining this as a secularist, and yes I believe in the Spirit being real- I am simply using another vocabulary to speak to someone who thinks differently than we do.

Dude

You're not getting this.  Of course it is a story of course it's not history.  You are now quibbling because I called it an "account"??  What do you think history is if not "his-STORY" as opposed to someone else's STORY?

Did you read anything I said?

We take it on testimony for the same reason that people decide to be Democrats instead of Republicans or to fight for equality of income instead of going to the Celestial Kindom because they think SUBJECTIVELY that the CK is bunk and income equality is more important.  Yes some go for both- but that's not the point.

What hits people in the gut and they think is important and what makes them happy is THEIR idea and the making them happy part is what we call "testimony"

They get the warm fuzzies fighting for income equality or saving the whales.  They have a feeling deep in their hearts that what they are doing is "TRUE".  Saying something is "true" is no more than saying "I agree"  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

There is no criteria for saying they are wrong and we are right other than what we personally believe.

And don't give me the "jump off a cliff" argument- the fact that we agree that jumping off a cliff is not wise has nothing to do with truth.  Truth has nothing to do with states of the world, simply states of mind, see below Rorty quote.

So now you are reading all the scholars and take them as speaking the "TRUTH" as much as TBM's think THEIR experts speak the truth.

Fine.  Just know it's no different

Your religion is now "prove it all by evidence" which is just as much religion as "prove it by the spirit"

What's your evidence for "prove it by the evidence?"  It is a philosophy of men just as anything is and one can argue that just as well as anything else.   Here is one such discussion against your religion.  https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Logical-positivism-a-dead-philosophy

Play around with the terms all you like, and yes you do give me just as good or bad as I give you.  

I know that relativism and scientisim is only relatively true and you take it now as the gospel.  I predict a change in that view.

I can give a long list of very intelligent people who realized as they aged that all the brilliance they showed as youth was bunk, and they totally reverse their positions.  If you want two examples from totally different paths, look up Wittgenstein and Aquinas.  When have you ever before heard that those two had something in common?

Best wishes.

It could be my lack of understanding your argument, I'm thinking I don't fully grasp what you're trying to tell me, because I think I agree with you on the essence of these ideas, but you are telling me I don't understand them.  Ultimately, I agree that religion is a subjective experience, and truth for religious propositions is just saying "I agree".  

Where I disagree is that I think scholars of history or the bible or other sciences have things to tell us that are very useful and can help inform our religious paradigms as they always have throughout the history of the world.  Nobody today believes in the OT view of 3 heavens anymore (the air where the birds fly, a hard dome with windows in it to let out rain, and the top part where the rain and water are at).  Science has explained the nature of our planet and its relationship in the universe and religion has largely incorporated these ideas into religious paradigms and evolved along with the findings.  

Sometimes it sounds to me like you're trying to say that arguments on both sides of a debate are equally viable and equally true.  I just don't believe that.  The three heavens model is not equally true to as our understanding of the universe today.  If there is evidence that biblical scholars find that leads them to believe that Jesus was likely not literate, I need to take that evidence seriously and not just dismiss it because it conflicts with the traditions of my religion's theology.  

Why not take the scientific methods seriously?  It seems you believe we should take philosophy seriously and you let that philosophy inform your religious paradigm.  I see myself doing the same, so I'm not sure what you're trying to teach me with respect to how my beliefs that the sciences can tell us many important things about our world is in conflict with some higher philosophical position.