The Jesus is a Myth, Myth

[lax16]

Sometimes, when it comes to understanding he cosmos, science is he only method that provides meaningful answers.

How do you know that? What books have you read on the subject? Who wrote them?

Do you ever read the writings of scientists that are deceased?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sometimes, when it comes to understanding he cosmos, science is he only method that provides meaningful answers.

Actually, science provides data. Meaningful answers are constructed by sound logic and metaphysics in accordance with that data.

Meaning is a construct of the intellect. The scientific method via methodological materialism assumes a great deal, metaphysically speaking.

Both its strength and its weakness comes from the narrowness of its endeavor. Science provides practical solutions to problems because of that narrow field of view. To claim the method is the ONLY one that provides “meaningful answers” is to invoke an untenable definition of “meaning,” however.

How SIGNIFICANT are the answers that science provides? To answer that we have to know what the point or purpose of reality is, ultimately. Does science tell us that? No.

Everything revealed by science thus far may be largely unimportant trivia in terms of the larger picture of meaningfulness.

What science does is narrow “meaning” or “significance” to permit only that which it uncovers in light of its method - it ignores everything else by the constraints built into the very method it uses. That brings to mind the drunk searching for his keys under the lamppost because “the light is better over here.”

The lamppost (science,) it might be claimed, is the only source of light (meaning,) but that doesn’t mean the keys (answers) are to be found there. How do you know that other methods don’t exist to find the keys (answers,) especially since you refuse to permit those methods by intent and presumption - i.e, “…science is the ONLY source of meaningful answers.”

How would you know that to be true? Certainly science doesn’t (and can’t) tell us that. It seems to have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that it is the ONLY source of answers and yet cannot even show that basic assumption to be true because of the limits of its own method.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How do you know that? What books have you read on the subject? Who wrote them?

Do you ever read the writings of scientists that are deceased?

Dead men tell no tales, nor do they write any science.

 

[lax16]

Dead men tell no tales, nor do they write any science.

Well, let’s see… A dead man can tell tales if he leaves behind his body or DNA for us to find.

A dead man cannot write science, but his writings/research can live for centuries.

The question is, how can we know if the writings of the dead man are real and if the dead man actually ever lived in the first place?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

How do you know that? What books have you read on the subject? Who wrote them?

Do you ever read the writings of scientists that are deceased?

How do I know that? Are you asking me how I know that science works?

Yes I have read books written by people who are dead, many books, far to many to list.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Actually, science provides data. Meaningful answers are constructed by sound logic and metaphysics in accordance with that data.

Meaning is a construct of the intellect. The scientific method via methodological materialism assumes a great deal, metaphysically speaking.

Both its strength and its weakness comes from the narrowness of its endeavor. Science provides practical solutions to problems because of that narrow field of view. To claim the method is the ONLY one that provides “meaningful answers” is to invoke an untenable definition of “meaning,” however.

How SIGNIFICANT are the answers that science provides? To answer that we have to know what the point or purpose of reality is, ultimately. Does science tell us that? No.

Everything revealed by science thus far may be largely unimportant trivia in terms of the larger picture of meaningfulness.

What science does is narrow “meaning” or “significance” to permit only that which it uncovers in light of its method - it ignores everything else by the constraints built into the very method it uses. That brings to mind the drunk searching for his keys under the lamppost because “the light is better over here.”

The lamppost (science,) it might be claimed, is the only source of light (meaning,) but that doesn’t mean the keys (answers) are to be found there. How do you know that other methods don’t exist to find the keys (answers,) especially since you refuse to permit those methods by intent and presumption - i.e, “…science is the ONLY source of meaningful answers.”

How would you know that to be true? Certainly science doesn’t (and can’t) tell us that. It seems to have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that it is the ONLY source of answers and yet cannot even show that basic assumption to be true because of the limits of its own method.

I think you should re-read what I wrote. I said when it comes to understanding the cosmos.

There is a drastic difference between meaningful in regard to X, and claiming it is the “ONLY one that provides “meaningful” answers.”

 

[lax16]

How do I know that? Are you asking me how I know that science works?

Yes I have read books written by people who are dead, many books, far to many to list.

I am asking how you have come to your understand of the cosmos, for example.

I would think it is based on the research/writings of many who have lived before you. People that you have not met and cannot even verify ever lived but in your careful examination seem credible. Correct?

I also think their work has been added to and built upon by others over the years (that you have not met) and there is now a consensus among scholars what is likely true. They have come to a contemporary understanding of the cosmos that has evolved over time. Correct?

If you are reading books written by people you don’t even know ever actually lived, how do you know their writings are true? How do you know they can be trusted?

You admit science cannot prove that a person has existed and also say all things must be provable by science to be accepted. How can you be certain that anything you know about the cosmos is even true?

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I

If you are reading books written by people you don’t even know ever actually lived, how do you know their writings are true? How do you know they can be trusted?

You admit science cannot prove that a person has existed and also say all things must be provable by science to be accepted. How can you be certain that anything you know about the cosmos is even true?

Well to be honest it does not matter to me if they existed or if it was written by an imposter, all that matters is if what they wrote is meaningful (and meaningful has more than one definition, before we get into some pointless philosophical argument over what it “means to be meaningful” ).

I know they can be trusted because I understand the scientific method, because they are repeatable and therefore verifiable, because I understand peer review.

Science can not only not prove people existed but it cannot prove ANYTHING. Proofs are mathematical not scientific. There is not such thing as proving something with science, the same goes with certainty. Other than the logical absolutes we cannot be ABSOLUTLY certain about anything.

 

[KathleenGee]

Mr.'s Peter Plato and Mr. Empiricalism…

Catholicism…I use the name, Catholicism now in the broadest sense…incorporating…He Ekklesia Katholika…the name given by St. Ignatius of Antioch…on his way to martyrdom…referring to the universal Church comprised of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and Constantinople. These 5 Patriarchs comprise the Universal Christian Church.

Our faith is based on Sacred Scripture, Tradition - how faith is lived out and put into practice, and the Natural Law.

You should study the contributions by Catholics that are testimony to our faith based on both faith and reason…at the Vatican Library…those who lived primarily celibate lives to give all for the kingdom, and made great contributions in the fields of social and health sciences, education up to establishing universities for all people, economics, science, arts and music…

Joseph Mengel was an Augustinian monk…the Father of Genetics.

The Church is the leader right now of stem cell research. Recently, skin was taken from the hand of a nearly immobile 97 year old man. They ran a line of dna…put it back in and he regain his mobility…with using aborted babies’ or embryos.

Thomas Aquinas is a good read…his teachings are part of many doctrines…where all animate and inanimate have truth to their existence…and meaning…as well…

We can say there was the work of myths in the earliest of civilizations…but as stated before…truth…God…the Unmoved Mover…speaks through myths.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Science can not only not prove people existed but it cannot prove ANYTHING. Proofs are mathematical not scientific. There is not such thing as proving something with science, the same goes with certainty. Other than the logical absolutes we cannot be ABSOLUTLY certain about anything.

Even if we grant your last claim, the question and acceptance of what is the most reasonable explanation – even far and away THE most reasonable – does not require absolute certainty. Accepting reasonable conclusions is done all the time by reasonable individuals.

N.T. Wright builds a case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus being, by far, the best explanation for the claims of the Gospels.

winteryknight.com/2015/08/21/n-t-wright-lectures-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus-did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead-5/

Wright basically argues that the resurrection cannot have been a myth invented by the early Christian community, because the idea of the Messiah dying and being bodily resurrected to eternal life was completely unexpected in Jewish theology, and therefore would not have been fabricated.

Here’s the thing…

Many will simply dismiss Wright’s set of arguments without reading them for the sake of hanging on to their own assumptions and prejudices vis a vis atheism. Yet, Wright is an individual who has spent the better part of his life studying the issue and has arrived at what he believes is the reasonable conclusion. Many, however, with much less warrant will dismiss Wright’s conclusion based upon a cursory and largely prejudiced reading – if they even take the time to give it serious consideration.

Radical skepticism gets us nowhere. At some point, life demands we make choices. Those choices can only be based upon sincere and sound reasoning – not absolute certainty, which isn’t available to us given that we are contingent beings with limited access to the full picture.

Jesus as myth is NOT a more reasonable or better reasoned position than accepting the veracity of the Gospels, it is simply a bland assertion of doubt for which NO reasoning is required, mere denial would suffice.

The problem with denial is that no one uses denial on its own to make progress in any endeavor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

.

The Church is the leader right now of stem cell research. Recently, skin was taken from the hand of a nearly immobile 97 year old man. They ran a line of dna…put it back in and he regain his mobility…with using aborted babies’ or embryos.

I suspect you mean “without using aborted babies or embryos.”

 

[lax16]

Well to be honest it does not matter to me if they existed or if it was written by an imposter, all that matters is if what they wrote is meaningful (and meaningful has more than one definition, before we get into some pointless philosophical argument over what it “means to be meaningful” ).

Lucky for you I am not that philosophical.

The same could be said about the writings about Jesus Christ - very meaningful.

I know they can be trusted because I understand the scientific method, because they are repeatable and therefore verifiable, because I understand peer review.

Can this same criteria be applied to those who wrote about the life of Jesus and their writings?

Science can not only not prove people existed but it cannot prove ANYTHING. Proofs are mathematical not scientific. There is not such thing as proving something with science, the same goes with certainty. Other than the logical absolutes we cannot be ABSOLUTLY certain about anything.

Interesting. How are atheists absolutely certain there is no God, in your opinion? They usually claim they don’t believe because there is no proof. According to what you have said here, if someone is expecting proof for anything, including God, they are asking for the impossible.

Thoughts?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Science can not only not prove people existed but it cannot prove ANYTHING. Proofs are mathematical not scientific. There is not such thing as proving something with science, the same goes with certainty. Other than the logical absolutes we cannot be ABSOLUTLY certain about anything.

Further use of science to build a strong probative case that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or eyewitness testimony and should be seen as reliable historical documents is found here:

winteryknight.com/2015/08/20/peter-j-williams-lectures-on-the-historical-reliability-of-the-gospel-narratives-5/

Basically, Williams uses the accuracy of personal names, geographical names, biological information and the frequency of these in the Gospel narratives to show that these writings differ radically from gnostic, mythical or other pseudepigraphal works.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Interesting. How are atheists absolutely certain there is no God, in your opinion? They usually claim they don’t believe because there is no proof. According to what you have said here, if someone is expecting proof for anything, including God, they are asking for the impossible.

Thoughts?

The inconsistency of atheism becomes quite obvious here. What many atheists positively require from theists is certain or absolute “proof” before they will accept any form of theism, yet that level of proof is not required with regard to everything else they willingly accept.

The fallback argument is that some level of “evidence” is acceptable for those other beliefs, but certain proof is necessary for belief in God. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Yet, all evidence for the supernatural is dismissed on the grounds that evidence CAN ONLY demonstrate the natural.

Very convenient and impervious shield against whatever a person does not want to accept, usually this is with reference to the moral implications of belief in God.

I think Williams does a good job throwing up an otherwise inexplicable fact about the Gospels. How could the writers get the basic information so right if they (or some reliable source) weren’t there to actually witness the events? And why would they go through such pains to get those details correct if their only concern was making the narrative “meaningful?”

They wouldn’t have anticipated that modern methods such as checking frequencies of names could have put the lie to their claims – ergo, the ONLY conclusion is these people were relating the truth to the very best of their ability. They were simply telling what they knew and understood to be true.

 

[hadulzo]

Definition of myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Definition of myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Meaning?

Myth is a genre of writing that is not intended to treat actual historical events accurately, but merely to convey values or extend traditions.

The point is that the Gospels were not intended by their writers to be myth in that sense, but rather accurate historiographies or eye witness testimonies about the life and death of one man, Jesus of Nazareth, by those who were there to witness what happened and faithfully report what occurred.

 

[KathleenGee]

You don’t think it fascinating that a line of DNA that was taken from a 97 year old man…one could say…a 97 year old DNA was taken and then lab was done to make it run a line of new DNA…

So old 97 year old dna ran a line…and was put back into the 97 year old man…and rejuvenated him…that is fascinating…and it didn’t take the life of an unborn baby…that had all its dna at conception.

 

[KathleenGee]

Myths are indeed created to on to traditions…that work…that sustain life and the propagation of the next generation…as well as provide some kind of moral compass…that is quite enlightening for such old timers way back then…

Myths also used to ask and answer questions of who they were, where did they come from, where are they now, and where are they going?..

Myths seek answers in that which is stationary and consistent…

God the Unmoved Mover…

 

[DCNBILL]

Well to be honest it does not matter to me if they existed or if it was written by an imposter, all that matters is if what they wrote is meaningful (and meaningful has more than one definition, before we get into some pointless philosophical argument over what it “means to be meaningful” ).

I know they can be trusted because I understand the scientific method, because they are repeatable and therefore verifiable, because I understand peer review.

Science can not only not prove people existed but it cannot prove ANYTHING. Proofs are mathematical not scientific. There is not such thing as proving something with science, the same goes with certainty. Other than the logical absolutes we cannot be ABSOLUTLY certain about anything.

In other words you have faith in the writings of those dead people.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Even if we grant your last claim, the question and acceptance of what is the most reasonable explanation – even far and away THE most reasonable – does not require absolute certainty. Accepting reasonable conclusions is done all the time by reasonable individuals.

N.T. Wright builds a case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus being, by far, the best explanation for the claims of the Gospels.

winteryknight.com/2015/08/21/n-t-wright-lectures-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus-did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead-5/

Here’s the thing…

Many will simply dismiss Wright’s set of arguments without reading them for the sake of hanging on to their own assumptions and prejudices vis a vis atheism. Yet, Wright is an individual who has spent the better part of his life studying the issue and has arrived at what he believes is the reasonable conclusion. Many, however, with much less warrant will dismiss Wright’s conclusion based upon a cursory and largely prejudiced reading – if they even take the time to give it serious consideration.

Radical skepticism gets us nowhere. At some point, life demands we make choices. Those choices can only be based upon sincere and sound reasoning – not absolute certainty, which isn’t available to us given that we are contingent beings with limited access to the full picture.

Jesus as myth is NOT a more reasonable or better reasoned position than accepting the veracity of the Gospels, it is simply a bland assertion of doubt for which NO reasoning is required, mere denial would suffice.

The problem with denial is that no one uses denial on its own to make progress in any endeavor.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything I posted.