The Daily Show - Reza Aslan
- Thread starter A Cup Of Tea
- Start date
so helpful....thanx
Sigh ... OK Wil, let me spell it out for you.
You dismissed NT texts as the exaggerations of old men, myth-making, the pushing of agendas, etc., etc. You've said over and again that as we don't know anything about the authors, we can place no faith in the texts ... in fact that Jesus might never have existed, that they made it all up.
Then, on other occasions, you cite Scripture texts to support your claims, 'ye are gods', or 'in him we live and move', or that we are sons and daughters of God...
... but why are those texts not just more fictions and fabrications, like the stuff you don't buy?
You dismissed NT texts as the exaggerations of old men, myth-making, the pushing of agendas, etc., etc. You've said over and again that as we don't know anything about the authors, we can place no faith in the texts ... in fact that Jesus might never have existed, that they made it all up.
Then, on other occasions, you cite Scripture texts to support your claims, 'ye are gods', or 'in him we live and move', or that we are sons and daughters of God...
... but why are those texts not just more fictions and fabrications, like the stuff you don't buy?
I have no problem with mythology. Sherlock Holmes didn't exist...doesn't stop me from using deductive reasoning. Whether Jesus existed or not has no bearing on me....I like the words attributed to him. I am a supporter of Peace, and loving your neighbor as yourself. I think in times of trouble meditating in the garden has value. We are pretty much certain the lady at the well, the doodling in the sand, the ye without sin cast the first stone...were not included in the earliest copies of the book....it was added....so what? It is good thinking. The mouse never pulled the thorn from the lions paw...so what....gulliver never traveled....who cares....tis the metaphor and the story that has the value.....to me. We all know the text includes mythology, metaphor, allegory, parables....how much and where, you may all argue till doomsday and still not agree. But for me, if I find value in a dandelion in a sidewalk crack one day...all is well....
The bible is my number one spiritual reference book.... but I look at various translations/versions when one doesn't speak to me... I find one that does. I use the MBD, and commentaries to help me along. But the value in my interpretations and my reading is for me...not for you...and you shouldn't expect it to. Just as the value you see in believing that wine and bread physically turns into the blood and body is not for me. Different strokes for different folks... We all have different tastes in music, in sexual partners, in weather....that is not an issue....but folks get all riled up when we have different beliefs.... that to me....is their problem. My only issue is when folks wish to tell me what I believe, what I should believe or try to do so with violence....
The bible is my number one spiritual reference book.... but I look at various translations/versions when one doesn't speak to me... I find one that does. I use the MBD, and commentaries to help me along. But the value in my interpretations and my reading is for me...not for you...and you shouldn't expect it to. Just as the value you see in believing that wine and bread physically turns into the blood and body is not for me. Different strokes for different folks... We all have different tastes in music, in sexual partners, in weather....that is not an issue....but folks get all riled up when we have different beliefs.... that to me....is their problem. My only issue is when folks wish to tell me what I believe, what I should believe or try to do so with violence....
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,414
- Reaction score
- 611
- Points
- 108
Aslan says it is "very likely" Jesus was illiterate. I like the notes in Aslan's book the most, because he gives you references to find arguments for and against many of his opinions. For example, Jesus reportedly read Isaiah in the synagogue. However, in his notes Aslan mentions what John Meier said about Jesus reading the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue:
"Anyone who would wish to defend Luke's depiction of the Isaiah reading as historically reliable even in its details would have to explain (1) how Jesus managed to read from an Isaiah scroll a passage made up of Isaiah 61:1a, b, d; 58:6d; 61:2a, with the omission of 61:1c, 2d; (2) why it is that Jesus read a text of Isaiah that is basically that of the Greek Septuagint, even when at times the Septuagint diverges from the Masoretic text."
And he also notes John Meier believes Jesus was literate. How literate? I don't know. You'd have to read Meier's Marginal Jew for both sides of the argument. All we can do is speculate. For example, Jesus reportedly wrote on the ground, but that also has problems . . . so is this story fiction or nonfiction? Nobody knows for sure. Because of so many unknowns I find Jesus to be a difficult figure to understand.
Last edited:
You read the text. It's pretty clear when the text is saying 'this happened' and when it's saying 'this is a metaphor'.
Is it innerant? No. Is it inspired, yes. But it's a given, among scholars at least, that there are many different narrative styles in the OT. The Books are radically different things. Job is different to Proverbs is different to Psalms is different to Kings, and so on ...
That's the point. There isn't a difference. The thesis just can't stand as it is, because it rests on asserting some of Jesus words and deeds are authentic, and some are not ... the point then is there's no way of proving which is which, it's a slippery slope. So the claim that Jesus was trying to mobilise a popular revolt against Rome rests on selecting some verses as authentic, and dismissing others as false. Then you fabricate a premise to justify your dismissal...
The point is that 'orthodox' scholars present Jesus of faith as the Jesus of history, and they're the first to declare that you cannot separate the two. The only evidence we have of Jesus, the NT, is one of faith. You can accept that, or dismiss it. What you can't do is 'extract' Jesus from the testimonies.
The idea that the authors of Scripture invented this Son of God character, and made up the mystical stuff to add credence to the tale, but left in enough material for a reader to 'see through' the fictions, seems to me far-fetched. If Jesus was nothing more than a zealous rabble-rouser, they'd have made sure they edited out the stuff that gives that away. Scholars agree universally that Matthew, Luke, John and Paul were erudite, educated, with a profound philosophical, metaphysical, theological and philosophical insight ... Mark is the odd-ball, and yet we know his Gospel predates and informs theirs, which only throws more doubt on the fiction theory ...
Hi Wil.
I posed an objective question, and get a long subjective self-justification.
Please understand, I really don't mind what you choose to believe.
When I question is when you present your own myths as a material argument, as an objective and valid critical reason, to dismiss the beliefs of others as ignorance or superstition. I have the right to do that, this is a public forum for the airing of views, after all. Where the logic of your criticisms is flawed, I have the right to point that out. If you don't like that, I suggest it's unwise to post your thoughts on public forums.
The point being, that does not mean the NT accounts of miracles, for example, are myths. You choose to believe they are. OK. I see them as something more profound. I do not expect people to believe, but I have the right to response when the reasoning is unsound.
I pull good stuff from whever I find it, but I don't assume that arose where it's found. ET said 'be good', but I don't believe in ET, and wouldn't base a philosophy of life on the sayings of a movie alien. Nor would I assume that the scriptwriter came up with that nugget of wisdom from him or herself ...
(I always wonder why, if it is as true as you believe it to be, you never just left and found yourself another troop. I would have.)
I posed an objective question, and get a long subjective self-justification.
Please understand, I really don't mind what you choose to believe.
When I question is when you present your own myths as a material argument, as an objective and valid critical reason, to dismiss the beliefs of others as ignorance or superstition. I have the right to do that, this is a public forum for the airing of views, after all. Where the logic of your criticisms is flawed, I have the right to point that out. If you don't like that, I suggest it's unwise to post your thoughts on public forums.
Nor do I, but I don't build a philosophy of life on it, I would want firmer foundations than that. Houses built on sand, and all that.
The point being, that does not mean the NT accounts of miracles, for example, are myths. You choose to believe they are. OK. I see them as something more profound. I do not expect people to believe, but I have the right to response when the reasoning is unsound.
Sorry, false logic. Sherlock Holmes is not the inventor of deductive reasoning.
Of course you do, because they suit your outlook, I can understand that. But then you just use Jesus like a utility. You don't really care if He never said the words, you just like the words ... Jesus, if you're honest with yourself, is immaterial.
OK. But that's the Golden Rule. You like the Golden Rule, you'd like whoever said it, be he or she a philosopher, a prophet, a character in a movie ... but would you put your faith and trust in them, or in the words?
Again, false logic. No-one said those stories were true. You're comparing apples and bicycles. It would be an unwise man who set off in a boat to find Lilliput, without the provisions for a return journey.
I pull good stuff from whever I find it, but I don't assume that arose where it's found. ET said 'be good', but I don't believe in ET, and wouldn't base a philosophy of life on the sayings of a movie alien. Nor would I assume that the scriptwriter came up with that nugget of wisdom from him or herself ...
OK. But please allow that if it's not metaphor, it has a greater value.
So you say, but then you dismiss so much of it, and abuse those who don't, that again I find the comment disingenuous.
I don't. Try not to take things so personally.
Then allow that it might be, and not dismiss it as a seder, and nothing more, that's two different things.
You do rather make an issue when you choose to, though ...
I would say your anger with your Catholic Boy Scout Troop is your problem, and you've aired it here more than once, as if it means anything in the scheme of things. Like your comment about 'being lied to' by Scripture teachers. That sounds like someone who's being a tad unreasonable ...
(I always wonder why, if it is as true as you believe it to be, you never just left and found yourself another troop. I would have.)
I'm not telling you what you believe, I just point out the logic of why you believe is often flawed. There maybe a greater view.
neither was jesus the inventor of love your neighbor.....or love the lord thy G!d with all your heart.... doesn't mean they aren't referenced often eh?
Thomas Jefferson.... not a fellow noted for unsound reasoning... he tossed out all the miracles...Jeffersonian Gospels... M, M, L, and John 90% intact... I don't mind being aligned with his shoes.
LOL...you must have quite the annotated bible... My entire book of Genesis does not have a preamble that says ....this is all metaphor and mythology... sure there are some references in Jesus's parables where he says that... but there are plenty of 'this happened' that didn't....like wrestling with G!d as the river...
I said
No Sherlock Holmes, a fictional character did not invent deductive reasoning... seems both my analogy and logic are sound... we can learn from mythology and fiction....
You said
I replied
You replied
Seems pretty straight forward to me...
No Sherlock Holmes, a fictional character did not invent deductive reasoning... seems both my analogy and logic are sound... we can learn from mythology and fiction....
It doesn't.... it is OT...
I wasn't the 'boy'...Boy Scouts wasn't about me...it was for my son, what he was interested in...he didn't mind getting home early he didn't know what he was missing by not having 'scouts own' I've got no anger... I've simply pointed out what I saw and what took place.... recently had a discussion with this on someone who went through it with another troop ten years previous....the boys were told by the Catholic Church that sponsored them...that they only wanted Christians in the group...they were willing to put up with the protestants but there was a muslim boy and two jewish boys that joined...and the adults put it to the boys as a vote....the American Legion took them on...the kids stood up for religious freedom.
But I take it you don't believe telling kids that Noah put 2 of every animal on the ark as fact is a lie? or 6 days of creation, or the mud, or the rib? Really? Seems you are just taking the devils advocate role...
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 580
- Points
- 108
You guys ok?
The Sherlock thing is a bad comparison. Wil likes the words of Jesus, Thomas likes the nature of Jesus. You live in different worlds.
The Sherlock thing is a bad comparison. Wil likes the words of Jesus, Thomas likes the nature of Jesus. You live in different worlds.
Sure we are ok... Sherlock is based on a real person... Jesus may be real..or may be a compilation of real people... I like the teachings and nature purported to be that of Jesus....
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 393
- Points
- 83
Thomas you do have me stumped on this declaration of yours that the act of reading the NT makes it obvious what parts are fact and what is metaphor. I do believe this is the most remarkable statement I have ever 'heard' you say. Whatever it is you see in the text that tips you off, is not in any way obvious to me!
?? How I approach scripture today...how I teach sunday school and the bible today is completely different than how I was taught. We teach kids to think, not what to think...we teach the teachings of Jesus and the history of Moses...not the other way 'round. Baggage? I let her down at the river...