Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really, anything on the gospels I posted here will explain it, but I'm hoping to publish...someday..
So back to my original question, do you have some links to threads where you discuss this theory on the gospels? Unless I'm missing something, you only mentioned that you had a theory and didn't explain what it was. This thread really isn't of the appropriate nature to discuss it at length. If not, guess I'll just have to wait for the book, or maybe I could try searching the forums for it I don't generally do well with forums searches, however.
Edit: I'm currently making my way through your "How could Jesus have come from Nazareth if it didn't exist?" thread. I have to say, this is very good work and quite interesting to me, a person interested in the Jesus story and how it relates to actual history. I'm of the current opinion that most of the Jesus story is myth/legend and not history. That's not saying there may not be an actual person the myth is very loosely based upon, just that there's very little real history about said person.
Last edited by NOTaTHEIST; 03-02-2014 at 03:31 PM..
Maybe it's this fear of loosing community that produces most of this suspense of disbelief.
I am like you in that my need for community is not that intense, and that made it easier for me to walk away from it. I know a lot of deconverts who really, really, really miss the "fellowship", but I can't say that this is true for me, even though I was a huge participant -- I was a church musician, ran their house newspaper, taught VBS, and a bunch of other things.
I'm certain it's a significant factor. For each individual it's no doubt a mix of potential social costs, fear of death, the constant drumbeat of messages that you can't possibly make it on your own without god, the anti-intellectual propaganda that causes you to doubt your own judgment or common sense, the need for approval, a sense of guilt and shame that's too great to bear, and some other things I'm doubtless not thinking about at the moment. One's personality, upbringing, and experience will determine how much a factor each of these will be.
So back to my original question, do you have some links to threads where you discuss this theory on the gospels? Unless I'm missing something, you only mentioned that you had a theory and didn't explain what it was. This thread really isn't of the appropriate nature to discuss it at length. If not, guess I'll just have to wait for the book, or maybe I could try searching the forums for it I don't generally do well with forums searches, however.
Edit: I'm currently making my way through your "How could Jesus have come from Nazareth if it didn't exist?" thread. I have to say, this is very good work and quite interesting to me, a person interested in the Jesus story and how it relates to actual history. I'm of the current opinion that most of the Jesus story is myth/legend and not history. That's not saying there may not be an actual person the myth is very loosely based upon, just that there's very little real history about said person.
Absolutely a classic agnostic position. I could now expect to ask whether on that basis you believe in 'God' or not. If you do, why? In not, you are an atheist.
But I do understand that 'don't know' is as far as you (and many others) are prepared to go. That's why many prefer the 'agnostic' label.
As I said, I really don't know. I don't believe in the classic Christian god, or really any other god who's defining characteristics include infinite compassion, justice, and power since there's no evidence of that. There is simply too much suffering and injustice in the world for there to be an infinitely powerful, all-knowing being who could make all that suffering end in the blink of an eye. That doesn't mean there aren't higher powers out there, but without clear proof one way or the other, it's hard to say what actually exists.
The problem with trying to push the issue is the lack of proof. We can rule out what we know isn't true, but that's it. For example, we know there's no intelligent life on Mars, so believing in Martians would be silly in this day and age. But is there other intelligent life in the universe? We have no idea. One can believe there is or isn't, but there's isn't enough proof to come up with an answer to that question either way. Without the evidence, debating the unknowable becomes meaningless and boils down to personal belief.
As I said, I really don't know. I don't believe in the classic Christian god, or really any other god who's defining characteristics include infinite compassion, justice, and power since there's no evidence of that. There is simply too much suffering and injustice in the world for there to be an infinitely powerful, all-knowing being who could make all that suffering end in the blink of an eye. That doesn't mean there aren't higher powers out there, but without clear proof one way or the other, it's hard to say what actually exists.
The problem with trying to push the issue is the lack of proof. We can rule out what we know isn't true, but that's it. For example, we know there's no intelligent life on Mars, so believing in Martians would be silly in this day and age. But is there other intelligent life in the universe? We have no idea. One can believe there is or isn't, but there's isn't enough proof to come up with an answer to that question either way. Without the evidence, debating the unknowable becomes meaningless and boils down to personal belief.
It seems to me that the defining characteristic of all religion, even the so-called atheistic religions like Buddhism, is a belief in an immaterial, supernatural realm.
Intelligent beings with superior technology and/or intellect and/or natural powers aren't supernatural in character, even if, as per Clarke, if they are sufficiently advanced they may in some ways "seem" god-like. The existence of such beings has nothing really to do with gods or religion.
Since all gods alleged to (1) exist and (2) have claims on us or care about some sort of interaction with us and invariably (3) invisible, it is reasonable to believe that they aren't real. All gods who are absent or indifferent will have no more impact on us than if they didn't exist. So all that is left is the spirits claimed by the animists, or perhaps some pantheon of gods pushed by polytheists. Those are also invisible and simply asserted without proof.
It is true that we can't rule out what we can't disprove, and the genius of theist claims is that they are not falsifiable. But ... it's kind of irrelevant then, isn't it? It is not a problem that I don't know and can't prove that I am not a brain in a vat, or that leprechauns don't live at the end of rainbows. I don't understand why people waste time waffling about gods or trying to be "fair" about it when unbelief is a totally reasonable response to the situation.
I am like you in that my need for community is not that intense, and that made it easier for me to walk away from it. I know a lot of deconverts who really, really, really miss the "fellowship", but I can't say that this is true for me, even though I was a huge participant -- I was a church musician, ran their house newspaper, taught VBS, and a bunch of other things.
I'm certain it's a significant factor. For each individual it's no doubt a mix of potential social costs, fear of death, the constant drumbeat of messages that you can't possibly make it on your own without god, the anti-intellectual propaganda that causes you to doubt your own judgment or common sense, the need for approval, a sense of guilt and shame that's too great to bear, and some other things I'm doubtless not thinking about at the moment. One's personality, upbringing, and experience will determine how much a factor each of these will be.
You're right of course. Whatever causes god belief is a very complex dynamic, especially specific anthropogenic god beliefs like the Christian god.
Thank you! Working my way through it now as it's quite comprehensive and detailed. My initial impression of your theory is the Gospels were not eyewitness accounts (I agree) and were taken from perhaps a single source material and were rewritten to serve certain political/prophetic agendas. This would indeed account for discrepancies, outright contradictions and the differing story elements between them.
It's been enjoyable so far and figure there's a few more days reading before I finish.
Thank you.That is indeed the basis of my 'thesis' (1) and I aim at giving sound evidence to support that. I have used the same arguments here and there on the forum, but 'Show and tell' (Work your way through it indeed) is the selection of material to make a case. The Book is longer as it in fact analyses every one of the four gospels in detail, and looks at Peter, too, proving (I hope) that it is a later conflation and is not (as one or two authorities have argued) an early and accurate eyewitness account. Every part of the gospels contribute a bit more evidence for concoction and an original Synoptic work and an original (Christian) story common to all four gospels and indeed (and this IS my Pet Theory) a recoverable basic true event of a failed insurrection by a Jewish would- be- messiah.
(1) an 'honorary' doctorate is probably all I can expect to get at my time of life.
Agreed! i appreciate the vote of confidence, Arq! I suppose it could be seen as some kind of concession about my hypotheses. I am not God after all. I could be wrong about them . . . but not about the existence of God.I accept that you think it is a rational and logical position, Arq . . . and I even understand why . . . but given my understanding of both logic and rationality it misses the mark. I would love for the hostility to evaporate . . . we are all just voicing our views after all. But for some . . . like those on my ignore list . . . I do not see it happening any time soon.
Testing.....Testing.....I'm testing to see if I'm on your ignore list. I'm also hoping to keep it light and airy in here. I do give you kudos for following us into our home with your thoughts though. Brave indeed.
Thank you.That is indeed the basis of my 'thesis' (1) and I aim at giving sound evidence to support that. I have used the same arguments here and there on the forum, but 'Show and tell' (Work your way through it indeed) is the selection of material to make a case. The Book is longer as it in fact analyses every one of the four gospels in detail, and looks at Peter, too, proving (I hope) that it is a later conflation and is not (as one or two authorities have argued) an early and accurate eyewitness account. Every part of the gospels contribute a bit more evidence for concoction and an original Synoptic work and an original (Christian) story common to all four gospels and indeed (and this IS my Pet Theory) a recoverable basic true event of a failed insurrection by a Jewish would- be- messiah.
(1) an 'honorary' doctorate is probably all I can expect to get at my time of life.
I'll respond in the Show and tell thread with any further comments I might have after I complete it entirely. When and if this book gets published, I'd love to read it. I'm also looking forward to Richard Carrier's upcoming work were he uses Bayes' theorem to address the potential history of Jesus. I've already read most of his preliminary work where he argues for using the same method to address any historical argument. He makes a very good case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't generally do well with forums searches, however.
I suppose it could be seen as some kind of concession about my hypotheses. I am not God after all. I could be wrong about them . . . but not about the existence of God.I accept that you think it is a rational and logical position, Arq . . . and I even understand why . . . but given my understanding of both logic and rationality it misses the mark. 
