A few days ago, Dennis and I visited Penrith, a small market town a short distance from the city where we live. What a delight it was to discover that the street preacher who plagues our city – the humourless Dale McAlpine – also inflicts himself on this smaller place. We so enjoyed hearing him bellow out, as we manoeuvered past his confederates handing out poorly written tracts, that we were all sinners – ye, everyone of us – bound for hell.
As we stopped at an ATM we heard Dale announce how Jesus healed lepers and cured leprosy, which patently he did not. He said Jesus’ healing of lepers was a metaphor for what he could do for us all, by removing our sin and making us whole again. His metaphor schtick – an sophisticated one for a simple street preacher – put me in mind of our very own Camp commenter. As Sunday school teacher Don frequently reminds us, the Bible is a) literature and b) largely metaphorical.
In case he’s forgotten and is arguing this week that we should view the bible’s stories as historical accounts (his other favourite tack), here’s what he actually said:
Much of scripture is the kind of literature in which metaphor and other kinds of figurative language is common… you are out of touch with the literary character of ancient literature.
I hope you all feel thoroughly chastised by this. I know I do. Don was taking exception to my post in which I itemised the Bible’s mythical creatures, talking animals and impossible events. So, I’m going to take him, and Dale at their word and take a fresh look at the Bible’s use of ‘metaphor and other kinds of figurative language’
First though, let’s understand that metaphor and figurative language are distinctly literary techniques. In literature and sometimes in speech, metaphors make subtle comparisons and bring to mind a host of associations that the author does not then have to explain. Outside of fiction, they don’t have much of a function. We don’t, for example, attribute metaphorical meaning to human events and interactions in the real world. The present war in the middle east is not a metaphor for something else, like, for example, the warfare that Christians believe rages in the Spirit world. Sleepy Joe Biden’s activity, or lack of it, is not a metaphor for the present condition of the USA (let’s hope not anyway). Our personal relationships are not metaphors for something grander. There is no metaphor embedded in actual events or real world interactions.
No. Metaphor exists almost entirely in literature. While the occasional non-fiction author might add a metaphor for flourish, strictly speaking, metaphor exists in and for fiction and poetry. More than this, when, in fiction, ideas are expressed metaphorically, it signals that the surface meaning is of lesser significance. It is the underlying or hidden meaning that matters. The fiction is the vehicle by which the metaphorical truth is conveyed. Don admits as much in his comment.
Let’s try some illustrations. The underlying metaphor of The Great Gatsby, its truth, is the dark underside of the American dream. Its surface story isn’t real; it is fiction. The metaphor conveyed through Moby Dick – the fictional whale as well as the novel as a whole – is the destructive nature of obsession. Again, as powerful as this is, none of the story that conveys it actually happened. Frankenstein’s central metaphor is the danger that uncontrolled science represents to humankind. The story that carries this message is, however, pure invention. In All The Light We Cannot See, Light is the metaphor, as it frequently is. The characters’ insights into truth are what the author seeks to convey. The fiction is the vehicle of that truth. Choose your own example: fiction embodies metaphor, the ‘truth’ of the story. But the story itself is rarely an actual event. Even when it’s based on one, as the movies say, the narrative is extensively fictionalised.
So, let’s go back to Dale’s leprosy metaphor. In several gospel stories, the authors have Jesus cure lepers precisely to illustrate how he can heal people of their inner leprosy: their sinful nature. Jesus almost certainly did not heal any lepers; this is the fiction. The creators of the gospels designed the story to carry metaphorical meaning, which, in this case, is that Jesus can heal us from sin.
Likewise the stories in which he heals the blind; the blindness is metaphorical. The saviour opens people’s eyes to spiritual truth. He didn’t really cure blind people; that is the fictional vehicle for the metaphor.
He didn’t turn water into wine; the writers of the fourth gospel wanted to convey the spiritual ‘truth’ that the new cult’s beliefs were superseding old Jewish ones; a metaphor was a memorable way to do it.
Lazarus was not raised from the dead; the story is a metaphor to illustrate how God will raise believers at the last day.
The Romans did not execute Jesus; it was the spiritual rulers of the age who, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:8, put the saviour to death. The Romans are the metaphor for the wickedness of these supernatural beings.
Jesus did not rise from the dead. This too is a metaphorical fiction.
How did I do, Don? I’ve interpreted isolated periscopes from the gospels metaphorically. I’ve borne in mind that metaphor and other figurative devices are purely literary, techniques in fiction. I’ve channelled the literary character of ancient literature as defined by you (except of course you never actually do define it.)
You are invited to respond. I offer to post your comment, if it is as lengthy as I expect it to be. You must, however, keep to the point and resist making personal jibes. Choose any of the miracles, healings or pericopes from the gospels and demonstrate that they are real historical events.
It matters to you and to other Christians that the events of Jesus’ life did happen. That they’re not just the invention of clever writers who, taking inspiration from Jewish scriptures, created metaphorical events to convey higher ‘truths’. So persuade us that at least one miracle, healing or episode is more than a literary device, a metaphor for some fanciful theological ‘truth’. Provide the evidence that it really happened. Claiming the disciples witnessed the miracles or healing won’t cut it, when the disciples are themselves characters in the stories, and metaphorical at that.
rejectingjesus, 
Has Don painted himself into a corner?
* Not an actual corner, not an actual room, no actual paint was used.
LikeLike
As I replied to Neil, his “friend” Dale overstepped in calling the healing of leprosy a metaphor. I was first and foremost a demonstration that God cares about you (the afflicted) and can do something about it. It also became a “sign.” According to AI a biblical sign is: “an object, occurrence, or person through which one recognizes, remembers, or validates something.”
LikeLike
I think you friend Dale is overstepping a bit regarding leprosy and metaphor. I would call Jesus’ healing of leprosy not a metaphor but a sign. I’ll quote the AI generated definition:
“In the context of the Bible, a “sign” can refer to a miraculous event or occurrence that is intended to demonstrate God’s power or presence.”
The sign may be demonstrating the fact that God also heals spiritual uncleanness, but it was first and foremost a miracle of compassion and is used in the Gospels to show that God cares about people. In other words, it was historical first.
LikeLike
But asserting ‘it was historical first’ is not evidence it was historical.
Isn’t ‘a sign’ in itself a metaphor? The definition you provide koseighty is essentially that of a metaphor, is it not?
I’ll give you one more go. Demonstrate that a gospel event of your choosing is historical and not merely a metaphor, sign or literary device.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Ben Witherington’s definition of metaphor as being referential. It is a word picture that refers to something substantial.
LikeLike
Exactly what I say in the post.
LikeLike
Let’s give it a try, then. Here is a parable:
3 So Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’
What is the substantial referent to which this parable speaks? (Clue: Jesus mentions it in the next verse.)
LikeLike
And this is demonstrably historical how?
LikeLike
You are playing semantic games, Neil.
You might do a little study to determine who is speaking metaphorically. Is it Jesus or the narrator or both? I think you will find that the *clear* metaphors such as parable and figurative language come in Jesus’ words. Th narrator speaks in informative language.
Literature. I wondered if in the UK you used the same terminology as we do in the US. Some years back in the US educators began using the term “literature” for all kinds of writing. Technical writing, informational writing, poetry, fiction, drama, essay. etc. I am not sure why, but probably because the lines between them are fuzzy.
Metaphor is not limited to fiction and poetry, as you should know. We use metaphors in ordinary speech to convey ordinary ideas, and I expect to find them in essays. and informative writing as well as fiction – less so in technical writing.
Historical writing. I think most people can distinguish historical writing from poetry, even from free verse. They can distinguish historical writing without the need to know the historical circumstances from other sources. I suggested that Ark or Kos read Mark 15 for an eyewitness account of Jesus’ trial. I suggested that they would a nicely written narrative that is consistently from one point of view rather than a collection of accounts from several points of view. As I read that passage, I find no metaphors. It is straightforward reporting what one person observed.
I suggest to you, since you are a little more able than they, that you tell me why you think this passage is a metaphor, whereas Josephus, for example, is not.
This is literary and source criticism, but I think you are capable of it at this level.
LikeLike
I do like that we here are ‘playing games’ while you, presumably, are not.
I value your condescension too. I am thankful you think I can manage, if I try really hard, to see scripture the way you do.
I appreciate that you dismiss all of my points with your usual tired old assertion that I am in thrall to Carrier.
I thank you for reiterating points I’ve already made, redefine terms and dismiss others’ arguments as beneath you.
What a blessing it is to have you trolling here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is a road “sign” indicating curves ahead a metaphor for curves? I don’t think so.
“Demonstrate.” Jesus died on a Roman cross. No one who wrote about it wrote of it as a metaphor, including Tacitus. When I read him, it certainly sounds as if he considered it a historical event – with Pilate as a player. I don’t think Pilate was a metaphor.
LikeLike
You’re floundering. As has been pointed out to you before, just because King’s Cross Station exists doesn’t mean Harry Potter catches a train there. Just because JFK existed doesn’t mean Superman does (the latter met the president on more than one occasion in the 1960s.)
Pilate is a metaphor in the gospel story: for the supernatural forces Paul says killed the saviour. Tacitus doesn’t mention how Christos died. He says he suffered ‘the extreme penalty’, no mention of a cross. He is not contemporaneous and is likely to have derived his information from the gospels (indirectly through Christians.)
I’ll address more of this in a post soon, but bear in mind it is you who insists that much of the gospel story (and the Bible in general) is metaphor:
‘Much of scripture is the kind of literature in which metaphor and other kinds of figurative language is common… you are out of touch with the literary character of ancient literature.’
I agree – scripture is redolent with metaphor – and am now exploring what this means for the faith. You want it both ways of course: metaphorical and historical. My post demonstrates that a narrative with such a high degree of metaphor is invariably fiction
So, I ask you again: provide independent corroborative evidence of the supposed historical aspects of the Jesus story.
LikeLiked by 3 people
There aren’t any, Neil.
Even the account in Annals is at best hearsay and suspect.
At worst, another fabrication.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re right, there isn’t. None at all. But as Don believes there is, I thought I’d give him a chance or three to present it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ark, the recording of hearsay may be informational just as much as the morning paper where a witness to a murder reports what he saw or heard. But if you wish to hear the witnesses themselves, read what John or Mark say about the trial and crucifixion. They were there.
I particularly like Mark’s report of the trail before Pilate. In most of the rest of the Gospel, Mark is quoting Peter. We can see that in the grammar and syntax and organization of the pericopes. But in chapter 15, the tone and language change. They become much more sophisticated and sound like the report of one who is simply reporting what he saw and heard rather than quoting someone else. It has a single point and very personal point of view down to at least verse 33.
So read Mark for his own personal report of the trial and crucifixion.
LikeLike
@Don.
Please provide evidence that anyone you have listed was ‘there’?
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really, are you going to play games too?
We can place all of the official people in Jerusalem and in the offices they are holding in the Mark 15 account by reference to Josephus and other Roman sources. But you know that, right? The less well-known people we can place there either by reference to other accounts in the Bible or by simple analysis of Mark’s own writing.
LikeLike
But the gospels are anonymous so what evidence do you have?
We know Pilate existed.
And Herod.
Who else are you referring to?
LikeLike
We know most of the high priests. We know the Roman emperor Augustus and some of the things he did prior to the birth of Jesus. (Luke 3:1,2). We know how what they did fits the character of the NT depiction of them. Herod’s sons and what they did. We know John the Baptist. We know thw We know James the brother of Jesus. We know James the Just. We know Qurinius (Luke 2:1,2). From Acts, the sequel to Luke, we know many names of people across the Mediterranean who are named in history.
We know the background history of the Samaritans and Jews. We know the background history of the time of Jesus’ birth and the time of Pilate’s rule in Judea.
We know many, many places where these things took place across the Mediterranean but particularly in Judea and Galilee.
We know the geography of the Mediterranean world.
Bottom line, the NT is firmly anchored in the history of the time.
LikeLike
Mark is not quoting Peter. This is your unsupported theory, and yours alone.
I have never, even in my days as a Christian, heard it claimed that Mark was an eye-witness to any of the events he writes about. As the young man who flits around stark naked, yes, but not as an eye-witness to the trial. Even the theory he was the naked young man is completely without foundation.
Do tell us where you learnt he was at the trial, apart from the fact that, according to you, his writing style changes. Was it by ‘revelation’, by any chance?
LikeLike
Mark is not quoting Peter.
Papias and Clement of Alexandria both tell us he was quoting Peter and they tell us the circumstances and provide enough background to identify the approx. time – early 60s.
A linguistic and literary analysis of the text reveals a significant difference between the pericopes that are Peter’s and the voice of the narrator and especially between the voice of the narrator beginning in about 14:56 on to 16:8.
Look at a KJV Bible. Prior to 14:56 you will find that almost every verse begins with “and.” That is a Greek literal translation of a Hebrew idiom, the waw consecutive. From that point on it is rare. The writer uses better Greek and other conjunctions.
The idiomatic character of the Petrine portions is even more obvious in the Greek.
Literarily, the Petrine portions are consistency organized as chiasms. The reason is for easier memorizations and recall when reciting orally. After 14:56, those are absent.
You cannot recognize the quality of Mark’s Greek in any English translation, but he writes with all the characteristics we would consider “educated and sophisticated” in English writing – complex and compound sentences, unusual syntax, more unusual verbs, much broader vocabulary, and literary features such as the surprise ending in 16:8, etc. But he does not use metaphors. He leaves that for Jesus.
Why do I say Mark was at the trial? Because the reportage is straightforward, and everything reported could have been observed by one person. And because, knowing Mark’s mother lived in Jerusalem with the last supper likely held in her house, Mark would have been in that circle of people who was there and accompanied Jesus to the Mt. of Olives. Plus, because his uncle was Barnabas, a Levite, making him also a Levite, he would have access to the trial that others would not have had. (He or Barnabas, was probably the one known by the High priest in John’s Gospel and who had access to the trial because of their acquaintance.
LikeLike
He says he suffered ‘the extreme penalty’, no mention of a cross.
And what was that extreme penalty, then? If Tacitus got it from Christians, what would your guess be?
My post demonstrates that a narrative with such a high degree of metaphor is invariably fiction.
Even fifth graders can learn to tell the difference between informational writing and a comic book. It would be interesting to let them try reading the Gospels without coaching. My guess is that they would read it just as most people, a mixture of metaphor and informational writing.
If you examine the narratives without prejudice, they sound like straight forward reportage in which Jesus speaks often but not always in metaphors. The others do not. (I am amazed you cannot tell the difference.)
LikeLike
Fifth graders maybe, but not Don Camp who says we should recognise the metaphor in the gospels, yet when we do, insists we’re not dealing with metaphor at all.
You’re still saying things like ‘Jesus said’ as if he really did, instead of ‘Mark wrote’; the gospels are, as you’ve said yourself, literature. They are not historical reportage. If they were you’d have been able to demonstrate this. You haven’t come close.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don:
“And because, knowing Mark’s mother lived in Jerusalem with the last supper likely held in her house, Mark would have been in that circle of people who was there and accompanied Jesus to the Mt. of Olives. Plus, because his uncle was Barnabas, a Levite, making him also a Levite, he would have access to the trial that others would not have had”
Wow! Just wow!
How do you know all this?
You’ve created a whole story in your mind!
You’re impossible!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do what every historian does. He puts two and two together. That’s why history is such a mystery to you.
LikeLike
I think you’ll find that’s math, not history. No wonder you’re confused about the latter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don, have you ever read History of the Church (meaning the Mormon church) by Joseph Smith, Jr.?
It’s written in first person by someone who was there. And because it’s written as a first person biographical history, we know it’s true (those are the rules, after all).
So we know Smith was visited by Jesus Christ and God the Father. That he was tasked with restoring the true church of God to the Earth. To accomplish this task he was visited by numerous historical figures who instructed and imparted authority to him. Those figures included Moroni (an ancient American prophet), John (the Baptist), Peter, James, and John (the apostles), Moses (the lawgiver), and many others.
Jesus declared to Smith that the Mormon church was “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.” And since it was written in first person as history we know it’s true! Again, those are the rules, we can’t do anything about them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not only that…from mormonr:
Who were the “official” Book of Mormon witnesses?
Eleven men served as “official” witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Three of them—Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris—were specifically called by revelation to bear testimony of their experience seeing and handling the golden plates.[3]
Were the witnesses ever persecuted for their testimony?
Yes. Several first and secondhand accounts confirm that some of the witnesses, including David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Hiram Page, and Christian Whitmer, suffered mob violence.[6] Oliver Cowdery also reportedly suffered professional reputational damage for his testimony.[7]
Did the witnesses have reputations for being honest?
Yes. According to accounts from both skeptics and believers, the witnesses were reported to be honest and sincere,[8] though skeptics typically tried to depict the witnesses as superstitious or gullible.[9]
Here’s your evidence Don…what do you say?
LikeLike
I am not interested. As far as I am concerned, Mormonism fails on so many levels that it is not worth the effort to refute. The Bible and Christianity do not do so for you. You continue to make every effort to demonstrate they are false. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
LikeLike
HA! You write, Mormonism fails on so many levels that it is not worth the effort to refute. From my perspective, the same thing could be said about your Christianity. And if you could look beyond your influenced (brainwashed) beliefs, you would see this as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t believe the narrative of the Book of Mormon because it lacks the logic of history.
What was the setting of the story? Place and time?
Who were the people who lived at that time and who can be identified in history as belonging to that time and place?
What was going on at that time and place in history? Does the narrative of the Book of Mormon fit in that place and time?
Neil is obsessed with the Gospels being a kind of historical fiction. (Probably influenced by Richard Carrier.) But would the Book of Mormon even qualify for that? I enjoy reading historical fiction because it provides me a way to live in that time and enjoy the insight of the author who has done his or her research. One of my favorite books is “The Winds of War” by Herman Wouk. I like it because it agrees with the real time and place and sees the war through the eyes of the Jews. It probes the lives of people far deeper than any pure history I’ve read, even though fiction.
Does the Book of Mormon do any of that? Is there a “Josephus” who writing as a historian corroborates anything in the Book of Mormon.
On the other hand, millions of Christians have walked the hills of Galilee and toured the ruins that attest to the accuracy of the Bible. And have come away impressed by how accurate the writers of the Bible were in describing their own time and place. Does the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith do any of that?
The answer is no. For that reason, I don’t think it worth my effort.
LikeLike
Don:
“What was the setting of the story? Place and time?
Who were the people who lived at that time and who can be identified in history as belonging to that time and place?”
“The Book of Mormon is a religious text of the Latter Day Saint movement, which, according to Latter Day Saint theology, contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from 600 BC to AD 421 and during an interlude dated by the text to the unspecified time of the Tower of Babel.”
Don:
“Does the narrative of the Book of Mormon fit in that place and time?”
“The denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement typically regard the text primarily as scripture (sometimes as one of four standard works) and secondarily as a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas.[5] The majority of Latter Day Saints believe the book to be a record of real-world history, with Latter Day Saint denominations viewing it variously as an inspired record of scripture to the lynchpin or “keystone” of their religion.”
There you go, Don…the Book of Mormon absolutely answers all your questions about historicity…it says so itself!
LikeLike
What about the logic of history?
LikeLike
Don:
“millions of Christians have walked the hills of Galilee and toured the ruins that attest to the accuracy of the Bible. And have come away impressed by how accurate the writers of the Bible were in describing their own time and place. Does the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith do any of that?”
Yes!
As a matter of fact, you can visit the garden of Eden:
“Adam-ondi-Ahman (/ædəm ɑːndaɪ ɑːmən/, sometimes clipped to Diahman) is a historic site in Daviess County, Missouri, about five miles south of Jameson. It is located along the east bluffs above the Grand River. According to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is the site where Adam and Eve lived after being expelled from the Garden of Eden.”
See? A historical place!
LikeLike
Don:
“What about the logic of history?”
Remember, the Mormon truth is new…it’s only been around since the 1800’s.
Check back after 2,000 years…give the story time to evolve like the xtian story.
(I couldn’t post the last week…it wasn’t functioning like normal)
LikeLike
You don’t think that there was a Ceasar Augustus in 15 A,D. or a governor Pilate over Judea in 30 A.D. or a Herod Antipas? They were all made up by the Gospel myth makers?
LikeLike
Don:
“You don’t think that there was a Ceasar Augustus in 15 A,D. or a governor Pilate over Judea in 30 A.D. or a Herod Antipas? ”
You don’t think that there IS a Daviess County, Missouri, about five miles south of Jameson?
LikeLike
Goyo, the events described in the Book of Mormon did not happen in Daviess County Missouri. Theyn happened in n Mesoamerica. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/book-of-mormon-geography?lang=eng
In fact, the church itself does not know where exactly they took place. We know more about where the Tower of Babel was than they do about the geography of the BoM.
None of the people groups mentioned in the BoM have been identified in Mesoamerica. Many of the animals mentioned in the BoM did not exist in the Americas.
Need I say more? And do I really have to point out again the many archeological and textual confirmations of the people and places in the Gospels. Now Neil thinks they are all myth, but he is in the under the spell of you know who.
No genuine scholar thinks the BoM is historically accurate. Many scholars agree that the New Testament is historically accurate, even those who do not think the theological content is able to be confirmed by historical methods.
LikeLike
Scotland exists, Dunsinane Castle exists, King Malcolm and King Duncan existed, Macbeth existed, his wife existed. Yet none of the events Shakespeare constructed from these facts really happened. Macbeth did not meet witches, he did not murder King Duncan in his bed, his wife did not go mad.
In fact Duncan was defeated in battle and MacBeth, who became King after him, ruled peacefully as a Christian King.
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/Duncan-MacBeth/
You see, archaeology together with a few characters who really existed do not guarantee the truth of a story. Rather they are frequently pressed into the service of a creative fiction, such as Mark’s gospel.
You yourself were keen not too long ago for us to see the gospels as metaphor. Now you want them to be 100% historically accurate just because Pilate makes an appearance.
I’ve some snake oil I’d like to sell you. Only $5,000 and guaranteed the real McCoy. Mail your money today!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The existence of historical characters does not make a historical fiction novel history. But what makes a book such as The Grand Alliance history history rather than fiction? Could Churchill have been playing with us?
Fortunately, there were actual people whose lives we can verify by researching their families and following up with a visit. But WWII is only a generation or two in the past, not 2000 years. But there were people 2000 years ago who knew Jesus and wrote about him, people we don’t have much question about, Paul and Peter and James and John, for example. And there was, as there is for WWII and the people who experienced it, an effect of which the war was the cause. It changed their lives. There is also an effect for the life of Jesus, a huge effect. It changed the world.
I don’t think you could say that for the characters in Shakespeare’s play, except for those whose prior existence he drew upon for his plots.
You keep misquoting me, Neil. I said there was a lot of metaphor in the Gospels (as well as in the Old Testament.) Not that they were metaphor.
LikeLike
I don’t misquote you, Don. I merely apply the principle you advocated, that much of the gospels is metaphor. I’m interpreting for myself what is metaphor and what isn’t, as you’ve failed repeatedly to tell us how to distinguish between the two. I’m taking it that anything involving magic, the supernatural and the impossible are metaphor. Also anything that is evidently a trope from Jewish scriptures or is a rewrite of a story from them. That doesn’t leave much else. Looks like Mark was right when he said everything is metaphor.
Your list of people who ‘knew’ Jesus either didn’t (Paul) or didn’t write about him (Peter – even if the letters with his name are actually by him, he tells us nothing about Jesus’ life) or they aren’t who you think they are (John and James).
In any case, I am not disputing Jesus may well have existed; it’s the magical being of the gospels who didn’t.
LikeLike
That doesn’t leave much else.
In popular (and metaphorical language), that is getting the cart before the horse. In the more precise language of logic and philosophy, it is begging the question.
In any case, I am not disputing Jesus may well have existed; it’s the magical being of the gospels who didn’t.
Whew!! I was beginning to think you Brits were totally wonky.
But as an aficionado of literature, you do know that poetry, fiction, and drama are intended to expose truth (usually universal truth) that may go hidden in the ordinaries of life.
So, what truth does the Bible expose?
LikeLike
Of course it’s not begging the question. If you disregard that which we know does not exist – the magic and hocus pocus – then there really isn’t much left.
…you do know that poetry, fiction, and drama are intended to expose truth (usually universal truth) that may go hidden in the ordinaries of life.
Quite so: ‘poetry, fiction and drama’. I note you don’t say ‘history’. We are indeed talking about fictive literature.
So, what truth does the Bible expose?
The Bible does not ‘expose universal truth’ about God (non-existent), human nature (sin does not account for our shortcomings) or morality (its morality is inconsistent and compromised.) There’s no ‘truth’ revealed in its mix of fable, legend and myth.
LikeLike
Your statement of faith.
LikeLike
Not faith. Evidence.
LikeLike
The reality is that both Theism and Atheism are belief systems. There is no absolute evidence in nature to “prove” either. (I say that of Christianity as well.) In the case of Atheism/naturalism all you have is nature, so the evidence will forever be insufficient to prove Atheism. In the case of Christianity, we have a larger category that includes a God who can and does communicate with us personally and in acts that reveal him. That communication and his acts are proof, just as the communication we have with someone on the phone or the dinner that is in the oven when we arrive home after work is proof of our spouse.
Notre that this proof is both objective and subjective.
On the other hand, because Atheism makes the category error of attributing everything to nature ends up creating a belief system that is a tautology: everything is natural because the only thing that is is nature.
LikeLike
Atheism is no more than the absence of belief in a personal God. There is no faith or belief involved. After consideration of the available evidence the conclusion is reached that there is insufficient to justify belief in God. That’s it. Whether everything from this point is attribute to ‘nature’ or, more accurately, to physics, chemistry and biology is incidental to atheism itself.
You’re welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you don’t believe in God, what else is there? Most Atheists are at least honest about that.
LikeLike
Already answered: https://rejectingjesus.com/2018/12/31/love-and-kindness/
There is a search facility on this here site, you know. That is if you really wanted to know what I think.
LikeLike
Your “”statement of Faith” on https://rejectingjesus.com/2018/12/31/love-and-kindness/ is really playing semantic games. “Believing” is a word that is used in a limited sense, yes. But it is also used almost interchangeably with “think.” So, to accommodate your limited use, let me rephrase: WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISTIC CONVICTION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS WHOLLY NATURAL?
I use Naturalism with an upper case “N” when I am talking about the philosophy of Naturalism. And that is what I am interested in – usually. I use naturalism with a lower case “n” when I mean physics, chemistry, and biology, et al. I believe in them (think them valuable and a good way to understand how the world works) as much as you do.
My question is: “What else is there” if you do not believe in God or supernaturalism if not Naturalism?
LikeLike
Oh, right. Silly me. I didn’t realise we were redefining terms the Don Camp way. And you accuse me of playing word games because I distinguish between ‘believing’ and knowing’!
I refer you back to this post, which you commented on back in March: https://rejectingjesus.com/2023/03/10/its-life-don-but-not-as-we-know-it/
The evidence for Naturalism with a capital N, is naturalism (lower case n.) Happy now?
LikeLike
I did suspect that naturalism lead to Naturalism, at least in the minds of many. But when it comes to origins, naturalism breaks down. There is no science that explains how life came to be or how the cosmos came to be naturally. There are guesses, but no science. And there is no math that suggests it would be possible.
On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that both were designed by an intelligence capable of pulling it off. It is as simple as concluding that scratches on a rock are either made by the grinding of a glacier or by the work of a human hunter.
That alone should be enough for people to “believe, think, know with a high level of certainty” that creation is a better explanation than natural causes for existence.
LikeLike
We’ve been down this road.
Where did your Great Intelligence originate? You can’t decree that it has always existed, merely because you ‘think’ or ‘believe’ (see how different they are from ‘knowing’?) that this has to be one of its attributes. A disembodied eternal Intelligence cannot and does not exist, mathematically or otherwise.
That said we’re not discussing this again just so you can parade your ‘godly ignorance’ (Thanks, Nan!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you are a Naturalist, you likely think that matter/energy is eternal. If you demand an answer to where God came from, you might start with that.
LikeLike
Did you miss the bit where I said we weren’t discussing this again?
The difference between matter/energy and YHWH (because let’s be honest that’s what you mean by ‘an Intelligence’) is that we know matter/energy exists.
LikeLike
Follow up: Atheists cannot avoid the Naturalist belief. But it makes no sense. They ask for evidence of God and lack evidence for Naturalism. They are caught in the grip of MacBeth’s meaninglessness: “Tomorrow and Tomorrow, and tomorrow… . https://bi blicalmusing.blogspot.com/2023/12/makes-sense-i-became-christian-because.html
LikeLike
Of course there’s evidence for what you like to call Naturalism (physics, chemistry and biology, to clarify.) Absolutely tons of it. It’s called science.
Have you taken complete leave of your senses?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“. In the more precise language of logic and philosophy, it is begging the question.”
You’ve used the word “logic” many times…the “logic” of history, etc.
From the post “the god”,
Don answered me on a point about something violating the law of identity…Don said:
“never heard of the law of identity”!
The Law of Identity is the cornerstone of logic and mathematics.
You can’t have studied logic and not heard of it!
I think you, Don, come in here spouting catchphrases from crazy sources on the internet and hope to convince us that you actually know what you’re talking about.
You don’t!
LikeLike
goyo: Don said:
“never heard of the law of identity”!
The Law of Identity is the cornerstone of logic and mathematics.
You can’t have studied logic and not heard of it!
I think you, Don, come in here spouting catchphrases from crazy sources on the internet and hope to convince us that you actually know what you’re talking about.
You don’t!
Like that time Don said the Universe was “statistically impossible” and you asked him to show his math. *crickets*
Don spouts stuff to sound like he know stuff he doesn’t know. Which of course is the very definition of “faith.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t have studied logic and not heard of it!
The nicer thing about logic is that it is logical. No, I did not study logic formally. But as I say, logic is logical. Take for example the law of identity. Informally stated it is that a thing is the same as itself. It is not also something other than itself. Blue is not also red at the same time. It does not take a class in formal logic to know that is true. That is why it is axiomatic.
I do not recall what the issue was to which you were replying, but if it was the way words are used it is important to understand that words are not the thing. That is axiomatic as well. (The map is not the territory.) Words are symbols that refer to the actual thing.
So, words mean what the speaker or writer intends them to mean and may have different meaning in different contexts or as they are used by other writers. (In linguistics it is common to see words as having slightly different meanings in every use.) That is why many words are listed in dictionaries with a variety of meanings.
LikeLike
Don:
“They ask for evidence of God and lack evidence for Naturalism”
Lack evidence for naturalism?
Neil’s right…look around!!!
What’s the EVIDENCE for god?
LikeLike
Don:
“It does not take a class in formal logic to know that is true.”
Actually, it would probably help. Allow me to demonstrate…
The trinity:
Jesus is god.
Holy Spirit is god.
Father is god.
Jesus is NOT the father nor the spirit.
The father is NOT Jesus or the spirit.
The spirit is NOT the father nor the spirit.
This violates the Law of Identity, which means that it is ILLOGICAL.
Do you see how logic works in the real world, Don?
I wish more people would study logic, and be skeptical about the opinions that are spewed forth daily from people like you!
LikeLike
Red is red. Blue is blue. Green is green. (primary colors) Yellow is yellow. Magenta is magenta. Cyan is cyan. (secondary colors)
Add them together and they are white – if you are adding light. (You know the prism experiment. each of those distinct colors is included in white light in the visible spectrum.)
The law of identity in action does not mean that the Father, Son, and Spirit are separate and unmixable. Just that they are distinct from one another.
LikeLike
Don:
“The reality is that both Theism and Atheism are belief systems.”
Don:
“so the evidence will forever be insufficient to prove Atheism.”
This absolutely shows that you have no idea of what atheism is, nor how logic works.
How is “I don’t believe your god claim”, a belief system?
I don’t believe in Bigfoot…is that a belief system?
LikeLike
Goyo: “I don’t believe in bigfoot”
It is not quite the sam. Think about it. But for starters:
you do believe in the general consensus that bigfoot is a mirage
you do believe in that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
You believe in your own experience – or lack of it – related to bigfoot.
You do believe those who do not believe and debunk the reports of bigfoot.
That is unless, you just couldn’t care less. Now, that might be the case with the question of God’s existence. Lots and lots of people could care less. They are occupied with other things. But that is probably not you, since you and others on RJ are actively defending your disbelief. If you could care less, you would not be here.
I am one of those agnostics regarding bigfoot. I have lived in the big north woods and did not in all those years see any evidence of bigfoot. No tracks, no scat, no glimpses of bigfoot hoofing it through the woods. And no knowledge of anyone personally who had seen or heard any evidence. And I have known men whose life was working in the woods.
On the other hand, I have had experience with God. I have seen the difference he has made in the world and in my life. And I know many men and women who have had the same experiences. Including those who wrote the Bible and recorded their own experiences.
If the evidence for bigfoot ever reached that level – or even close – I think I would believe in bigfoot.
But there is one more difference that I think may affect belief or non-belief. Bigfoot is not going to mess around in my life. God is. And if you don’t want that, disbelief is a good way to avoid it.
LikeLike
Don:
“ I have had experience with God.”
Here’s an experience with Bigfoot:
“”One of the most famous Bigfoot sightings allegedly occurred on Mica Mountain in British Columbia in 1955, when a man called William Roe claimed he saw a “partly human and partly animal” creature while hiking. He swore an affidavit in 1957 that the creature was about 6 feet (1.8 meters) tall and covered in brown silver-tipped hair, with thick arms reaching down to its knees, broad feet and breasts, according to the Alberta Sasquatch Organization website. “
He had an experience with Bigfoot…do you believe him?
If not, why not?
LikeLike
I don’t believe in bigfoot for the reasons I’ve explained. Mostly, however, because of all the men I personally know who have spent considerable time in the north woods and in my own experience hiking, hunting and camping in “bigfoot country” NONE have ever had any encounter with bigfoot. None had any story to tell.
But I am open to good evidence.
The comparison you seem to be wanting to make, however, is not really very comparable. Even if I were to meet a bigfoot, it would not change my life. I’ve spent a fair amount of time in bigfoot land, and we seem to have gotten on quite well. So, bigfoot exist. So what?
It would have very little effect on my understanding of the world and reality. Meeting God, however, did. And it continues to have a big effect. It opened my eyes to the larger reality and to the critical importance knowing both that God exists and knowing God personally has for me. It allowed me, by his grace, to discover him to be a friend who has a wonderful plan for my life.
Over 60 years now, that plan has turned out to be the most fantastic adventure I could ever have imagined,.I, a poor kid from a nowhere cowboy town that almost no one knows or cares about in central Washington. I would not change it if I could. That is the difference God has made. Bigfoot? Probably not.
LikeLike
Nan: From my perspective, the same thing could be said about your Christianity.
Yet you take the time and make the effort to do so. Why?
LikeLike
Just trying to help you see the truth.
I know you’re totally indoctrinated, Don … as I was many years ago … so all that Neil, myself, and others say to you is spontaneously rejected. But we keep trying because we hope that someday the scales will be removed from your eyes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
“Yet you take the time and make the effort to do so. Why?”
Mike Johnson, the new Speaker of the House:
“House Speaker Mike Johnson Spent Years Defending Christian Speech In Public Schools”…
“New Speaker Mike Johnson says the way to learn how feels about any issue is to read the Bible: ‘That’s my worldview, that’s what I believe’”
Your MAGA friends are intent on turning the US into a theocracy, and you and your liberal ilk are part of that disgusting plan!
That’s why!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan, I am not MAGA. Never was never will be. I am is leery of MAGA as you are. As a religion, it is a heresy. As a political philosophy it is the greatest danger to Constitutional government that we have ever faced.
LikeLike
“Speaker Mike Johnson recently visited former President Donald J. Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, marking his first visit since becoming the Republican presidential front-runner.
The visit comes amid criticism for his collaboration with Democrats to avert a government shutdown.
Johnson’s meeting with Trump suggests his recognition of the need to secure Trump’s support and prevent right-wing opposition to his leadership.“
Here’s your xtianity Don.
He’s your brother in Christ, and probably has a mansion right down the street from yours and Jeffery Dahmer’s in heaven.
LikeLike
Don: On the other hand, because Atheism makes the category error of attributing everything to nature ends up creating a belief system that is a tautology: everything is natural because the only thing that is is nature.
We gotta do this every couple of months, huh Don?
Me: If you’d like us to believe in the supernatural all you have to do is show it to us.
Don (and every other theist asked): That’s a ridiculous demand. I’m offended you’d even ask.
1 month later. . .
Don (and every other theist asked): Atheists are so dogmatic never considering the supernatural.
So we’re back to the beginning, Don. Show us the fucking supernatural so we can consider it. It’s all on you, Don. Always has been. Show us you aren’t a delusional crackpot and demonstrate it to us.
Seriously, Don. I don’t know whether to score this is the Don’s Stupidity column or the Don’s Dishonesty column of my scoresheet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don: But if you wish to hear the witnesses themselves, read what John or Mark say about the trial and crucifixion. They were there.
kos: Don, have you ever read History of the Church (meaning the Mormon church) by Joseph Smith, Jr.?
It’s written in first person by someone who was there. And because it’s written as a first person biographical history, we know it’s true (those are the rules, after all).
Don: I am not interested. As far as I am concerned, Mormonism fails on so many levels that it is not worth the effort to refute.
Don: I don’t believe the narrative of the Book of Mormon because it lacks the logic of history.
I don’t know what “the logic of history” is. Most of us just call it “history.”
But yes, the Book of Mormon gets some things right — large cities and temples in Central and South America, for example. But there is no evidence that it gets any other details right.
Of course, it’s always possible that one day archeologists will dig up something that corroborates the Mormon story. And then will be time to believe. But it’s irrational to believe it until then.
But you missed (or ignored) the point.
The Bible too fails to match history for most of it’s claimed history. Nothing from before the Exile appears in actual history. And a united Israel doesn’t appear in any form until after the Exile.
Everything until then is myth, just like the Book of Mormon.
The New Testament fairs no better. None of the main ‘Christian’ characters from the new Testament appear in history. None of the apostles, not Jesus, not even Paul. They all appear later in mythic stories. I’m not saying they didn’t exist. Just that the stories of them are too fantastic to believe without corroboration. And there is none to be had.
And as Neil points out, none of the magic is believable (because magic has not been shown to exist in this world — please demonstrate some!).
And Jesus fulfills none of the prophecies of the Jewish messiah. And the Christian substitute prophecies pulled from the Old Testament are conveniently not verifiable.
Messiah takes the throne of David — would be verifiable, it would show up in history.
Virgin birth — unverifiable. Even today there is no way to test for virginity.
Messiah rebuilds temple — verifiable.
Rides two animals into Jerusalem — unverifiable.
Conquers all nations — verifiable.
Conquers sin — unverifiable.
The New Testament provides nothing of Jesus or his followers that can be verified beyond that they existed and had some odd ideas for Jews.
No. The vast majority of the Bible is un-historic. Just like the Book of Mormon.
Sorry Don, I don’t believe the narrative of the Book of Mormon or the Bible because it lacks the logic of history.
Of course, as actual scientists and historians have pushed Bible stories off the ‘actual history’ list, believers turn those stories into metaphor or allegory or mytho-history.
Interestingly, one of the many Mormon factions has decided that the Book of Mormon is an “inspired allegory” of God’s love and plan for humanity and not actual history. That nicely removes the need for ‘the logic of history’ that would disprove it. Like changing the global flood in Genesis from actual history to a local flood. Local floods happen all the time — logic of history sidestepped!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always enjoy our discussions, Kos.
First in answer to a previous question mark.
I don’t know what “the logic of history” is. Most of us just call it “history.”
It is not a term in formal logic. It is simply the observation that something that happened in real history is surrounded by and includes other things and people that happened at the same time. In other words, it is logical that an account of a trial in Judea at the time Pilate was governor would include Pilate.
The Bible too fails to match history for most of it’s [sic] claimed history. Nothing from before the Exile appears in actual history.
Really, maybe you missed the Assyrian frescoes that picture the king of Israel kneeling before the king of Assyria. Or the many archeological finds at sites that are mentioned in the Old Testament before the exile.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/divided-kingdom/3993-israelite-kings-in-assyrian-inscriptions Even the most skeptic like Israel Finklestein agree that archaeology reveals a real Israel.
These are things that logically we would expect if the narration of history in the OT before the exile were true.
They do not prove the history of the OT, but their absence would go a long way toward discrediting OT history.
I’m not saying [the apostles, Jesus, and Paul] didn’t exist. Just that the stories of them are too fantastic to believe without corroboration. And there is none to be had.
I watched video 30 years ago that examined the historicity of the Apostle Thomas’s ministry in Inda. The interviewer asked a priest of the Marthoma church for his evidence. He said he was the evidence. He meant that he would not be there doing what he was if it were not true. That may not pass for evidence of the historicity of Thomas, but it makes perfect sense.
But one example. Polycarp claims to have known and been a disciple of John. Irenaeus who knew Polycarp supports that story.
Another, Papias says that he spoke with men who had known some of the apostles personally.
To debunk those reports you have to debunk these men and those who knew them and so on through history.
none of the magic is believable (because magic has not been shown to exist in this world — please demonstrate some!).
Magic is a trick. You can go to a magic show yourself to confirm that magic exists. But that is not really what Neil means, is it? He means that there is no evidence for any of the supernatural claims of the Bible. But is that right?
I think there are many, but probably not Neil.
1) I’ve mentioned the existence and of Israel after exiles and pogroms over millennia. All foretold in the Bible. Yet they not only remain a people but are back in their ancestral land. It is pretty hard to explain that without recourse to God’s protection and intervention.
2. Prophecy fulfilled. There are hundreds. But the best as far as detail and historical confirmation is the seventy weeks of Danial in Daniel 9.
It happened. That pushes coincidence beyond possibility. But not for God.
LikeLike
One of my first encounters with Don, years ago, involved the historical contradictions between the date of Jesus’ birth in Matthew and that in Luke. In today’s discussion, we’d say that the birth narratives fail ‘the logic of history’ that Don insists on.
At the time, I didn’t realize that same contradiction exists not just between Matthew and Luke, but between Luke chapter 1 and Luke chapter 2.
Sorry, Luke. You fail Don’s ‘logic of history’ test. As summarized by Dr. Dan McClellan:
LikeLike
I apologize for a flood of comments today. WordPress has been playing games with my ability to like or comment for a while now. Today I was able to comment, though not to like. Also, there weren’t reply buttons to be found anywhere, so all my comments are all on the top level.
LikeLike
No problem, kos. I don’t know why WordPress had been acting up for you. It’s not always the easiest platform to use.
In the spiritual warfare that goes on in this household, technology is definitely winning.
LikeLike
Just an added note … I’ve found I have absolutely no problems commenting (and/or “liking” a comment) on blogs that are hosted by WordPress — but blogs that are self-hosted (as yours is) will NOT let me comment without “logging in”. And even after I’ve done as they asked, I may come back later in the day to leave another comment and get the log-in request AGAIN!
To get around this, I’ve been using the Reader … but it’s a pain in itself since I have to hunt for the particular post where I want to leave a comment. **Frustrated sigh**
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve checked the settings at this end, Nan and switched off new commenters must login. While this doesn’t apply to you, see if it makes any difference. I appreciate your perseverance!
LikeLike
I persevere because “we” have to fight “godly” ignorance. 😁
LikeLike
I think I fixed it … but ran into a glitch with this comment. I don’t think it’s on your end … I think it’s just how WP sets things up. But thanks anyway.
LikeLike