P
PRmerger
Guest
I just did a search for Monina’s posts and the word “infallible” was never mentioned by her.
It is you who, incongruously, attached it to her posts.
- Status
It is you who, incongruously, attached it to her posts.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Larkin is suspended, not banned.
He can return and defend his position at some point.
P
PRmerger
Guest
How would one validate the cleansing of the Temple as a historical event? Are there extra-Scriptural sources which detail this event? :dts:
It seems to be an inconsistent paradigm for an agnostic to accept that Jesus overturned the Temple, based on a historical text which he believes could have lies, mistakes, interpolations and exaggerations.
One ought not cite the Koran, as a historical text, saying, “Mohammed captured Mecca” if one believes it to contain lies, mistakes, interpolations and exaggerations.
If there were another ancient text which affirmed that Mohammed indeed captured Mecca, then that would increase the reliability of the claim.
However, I don’t think there’s another source that documents Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple. So for an agnostic to claim that Jesus did this, yet also claim that the writers of this Book he cites could be lying, mistaken, interpolating or exaggerating is, well, wrong.
P
Publisher
Guest
Just a note concerning the credibility of the writers of the gospels. Most critical scholars point out that certian events recorded in the gospels do have some historical content…just not all. It is not an “all or nothing” proposition. The gospels contain layers of oral and written traditions which may or may not have basis in actual history. The gospels are “history interpreted” not “history remembered”.How would one validate the cleansing of the Temple as a historical event? Are there extra-Scriptural sources which detail this event? :dts:
It seems to be an inconsistent paradigm for an agnostic to accept that Jesus overturned the Temple, based on a historical text which he believes could have lies, mistakes, interpolations and exaggerations.
One ought not cite the Koran, as a historical text, saying, “Mohammed captured Mecca” if one believes it to contain lies, mistakes, interpolations and exaggerations.
If there were another ancient text which affirmed that Mohammed indeed captured Mecca, then that would increase the reliability of the claim.
However, I don’t think there’s another source that documents Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple. So for an agnostic to claim that Jesus did this, yet also claim that the writers of this Book he cites could be lying, mistaken, interpolating or exaggerating is, well, wrong.
There is indications that Jesus may indeed have caused a stir in the Temple, which led in part to his arrest and evenutal execution. The “authentic sayings of Jesus” can reasonably be separated from those sayings that “Jesus may have said or was paraphrased by the author” and from those sayings that Jesus never spoke but were later developments of tradition as the proto-orthodox/catholic groups gained prominence over those competing groups for the “authentic” Christianity…the victors in the struggle of those first few centuries decided which writing best supported their beliefs.
The four gospels we currently have are simply four of many which were circulated in those first centuries…some which containg authentic and “more authentic” saying and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth…of course most if not all conservative believers claim the gospels are actual “historical narratives”…those of us who lean toward a more critical scholarship see them as religious documents seeking to contrast those myths of Roman heros and emporers that claimed “godhood” with that of Jesus of Nazareth. The Kingdom of God was present among us as contrasted with the kingdom of Ceasar.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Agreed.
What extra-biblical sources document Jesus overturning tables in the Temple?
P
Publisher
Guest
Again, Jesus turning over the tables in the Temple is highly plausible. It is understood to be one of the contributing factors which eventually led to his execution…that of a 'rabble rouser"…this event in the gospels may have actually happened. There is no “extra-biblical source” concerning this as far as I know…except for perhaps Josephus…it’s been a long time since I read Josephus.
Critical scholars use “internal clues” to determine which events in the gospel is actual history and which are simply mythic tradition which grew in the decades following the death of Jesus. The gospels were written between 60-110 CE, about thirty to 80 years after Jesus’ death…and some 15-20 years after Paul’s authentic letters.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But not documented in any extra-biblical sources?
It is my understanding that THE contributing factor which led to his crucifixion was his claim to be God.
P
Publisher
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
As a Catholic I have no objection to “doctrinal development”.
But I do want to know what extra-biblical sources document Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple.
Is “highly plausible” another way to say, “I guess it could have happened but I don’t really know”?
P
Publisher
Guest
As I said previously…I don’t believe there are any “extra biblical” sources…except maybe Josephus…but on that point I’m not sure…it has been decades since I read Josephus…it may or may not have occured…if it did occur, it is one of the contributing factors of his execution.As a Catholic I have no objection to “doctrinal development”.
But I do want to know what extra-biblical sources document Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple.
Is “highly plausible” another way to say, “I guess it could have happened but I don’t really know”?
The only sources we have for the life of Jesus are the gospels…canonical gospels and non-canonical…each have varying degrees of plausibility.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, then, we are back to my original point: if someone believes his source could have lies, mistakes, interpolations and exaggerations, then he ought not use it to make any claims.
Perhaps if there’s another source that can confirm a point, that would give greater credibility.
But, alas, on this particular point that the agnostic was making: Jesus overturned the tables in the Temple, it appears there is no other source to corroborate his claim. He only has a source which he believes contains lies.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
"But when you call him on it he takes his toys and he goes back homeLarkin is suspended, not banned.
He can return and defend his position at some point.
So larkie you ready to come back out and play"
This is what I am talking about…its uncool, to say the least.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I guess this is not the hill I want to die on. I don’t really see a problem with rinne’s post.
F
FidesSpesCarita
Guest
R
rinnie
Guest
RD what did I say that was so uncool to you? I do not understand what was so wrong. All I said is that he like’s to divide us as Christians. I said that when you ask him to defend something he says he will leave for awhile if you ask him to defend his statement but expects us to watch every single word.
I said, and I still stick with my original post is to stick together as Christians and remove as much doubt as we possibly can in him and try to trigger something to bring him to the light. (you know the mustard seed)?
I said in a round about way, as easy as I could not to lose sight to what we are tying to do and do not let him get us at eachother. He loves to do that. He does it alot. Of course he will blame us, and partly he is right, thats where is likes to think he is the master.
But my orignial point is lets stick together as Christians no matter what faith we are, we have a common bond God and lets be an example of our faith the best we can and see if we can somehow someway work together with the help of the Holy Spirit and get him to Want to be on our team instead of against us.
And instead of being at eachother get him to answer our questions according to the word of God, (and as my Mother would say if his nose is in the bible for whatever reason, its a good place for him to be, and the Holy Spirit can work its magic).
Which I was just going to delete the last statememt. Magic. But will keep it there. Now Larkin would say oh magic? So you guys cast spells or something? Is that not like witchcraft or something. You got to know how he works.
Then he would crucify me for the word I choose. But he is smart and likes to use his education to win an argument, but only when he knows he can.But back the point. We are here to bring as many people to the light as possible are we not? If not we do not belong here.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Ok.I guess this is not the hill I want to die on. I don’t really see a problem with rinne’s post.
In all of my experiences on the internet, and I started with forums and so forth about 15 years ago, it was always considered…many negative words come to mind…to interact in this manner for someone who could not answer or defend themselves.
But maybe things have changed. Its funny but on atheist forums it would be considered being a jerk but on a Catholic forum its ok…oh well. Life goes on…for now.
R
rinnie
Guest
Guess it depends on how you look at the glass half full, half empty.
I see where larkin could indeed defend himself. He is very smart. Did you ever think that in his battle to defend himself and reading the word of God he could possibly find out he no longer wants to fight the word of God?
I see God as someone who aways has a reason for whatever happens. No matter how small, how large, how bad, how good.
Did you ever trust God enough to have someone, who no matter how bad they deny him can read one of his words and all of a sudden:newidea:
C
Contarini
Guest
Nothing incongruous about it. I have repeatedly explained why I think that her position logically implies the view that only infallible sources should be used. She has repeatedly failed to defend her position. You have proposed a weaker position, to the effect that only “reliable” sources which are not likely to contain lies or mistakes should be used. But that is not, in fact, what Monina has been saying. She has repeatedly criticized me for admitting that the sources I use may contain mistakes.
Doesn’t this logically imply that only infallible sources can be used? If you take away all the sources that may contain mistakes, what is left except infallible sources?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No. That is why scholars have put a lot of work into establishing criteria that help us decide whether (in the absence of a faith commitment in the historicity of the text) a given story or saying found in the New Testament is likely to be authentic. Probably the most widely respected set of such criteria has been drawn up by the Catholic scholar John Meier of Notre Dame. (Note: the first link is to Meier’s actual discussion of the question; the second to the Wikipedia article on Meier, which provides a brief summary of the criteria. Naturally Meier’s own discussion is the best place to go, but I provided the Wikipedia article in case you just want to know what the criteria are.) Meier himself points out that none of the criteria are beyond question–for instance, the criterion of “discontinuity,” if relied on too heavily, results in a Jesus who is neither Jewish nor a likely source for early Christianity, which makes no sense at all. This is not an exact science. But there are reasonable guidelines on which scholars of different theological persuasions (counting unbelief as a theological persuasion!) can broadly agree.
First of all, there’s a difference between the first statement “could have” and the second “believes it to contain.” You need to decide which of these you are defending. The first commits you to the view that only infallible sources should be used, since by definition a fallible source may contain mistakes. If you are simply saying that we should only use sources that we have good reason to believe contain no mistakes (I focus on “mistakes” as the most general category instead of repeating all four categories each time), that doesn’t formally commit us to infallibility, but as near as makes no difference. Pretty much any source that goes on at length about matters of any complexity will contain some mistakes. Given the human propensity to make mistakes, we can’t go for very long without doing so. So even if a given source doesn’t seem to have any mistakes, it would be highly naive to assume that it has none. You could strengthen your position by saying that a reliable source doesn’t have major mistakes (which of course is a highly subjective category) or deliberate lies. That’s a long way from the position defended by Monina. It’s not an unreasonable position when we have the luxury of possessing such broadly reliable sources (of course I mean by that: “sources that we have good reason to think are broadly reliable”). But sometimes we don’t. Sometimes–particularly when it comes to the founding of religious movements–the only sources we have are sources that are highly biased and most likely (again, leaving the question of faith out of it) contain serious distortions. Historians don’t have the luxury of simply throwing all the sources out the window, if we are serious about trying to understand the past.
Note: in the case of Mecca, I’m not sure if the Qur’an refers explicitly to this event–I was thinking of early Islamic sources generally.
“External” sources are certainly to be desired, but sometimes they just don’t exist. You have to make do with what you have.
Again, you keep reasserting this entirely unreasonable view, in spite of my repeated explanations of why it’s untenable. Please either engage with my arguments or stop repeating yourself.However, I don’t think there’s another source that documents Jesus overturning the tables in the Temple. So for an agnostic to claim that Jesus did this, yet also claim that the writers of this Book he cites could be lying, mistaken, interpolating or exaggerating is, well, wrong.
The problem of uncritical use of sources (as demonstrated by you and more dramatically by Monina) isn’t confined to ancient texts. This discussion helps me understand why so many people in contemporary America seem to divide the news media into the sources they trust (who cannot err) and those they don’t trust (who are presumably full of lies). This isn’t an approach worthy of rational human beings made in God’s image.
Edwin
P
Publisher
Guest
- Status