Could Jesus have been an Alien

alex73

CrazyBiscuit wrote: »

A more plausible explanation is that people make stuff up. Especially when writing in a book decades after he is claimed to have died.

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

So are we to take it that books written decades after are fiction?

Improbable

alex73 wrote: »

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

So are we to take it that books written decades after are fiction?

No, but you have to be aware that they may have any number of inaccuracies or falsehoods.

Ickle Magoo

alex73 wrote: »

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

So are we to take it that books written decades after are fiction?

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

Improbable

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

In fairness, I don't think it was about the content so much as it was about the fact that the event beign written about and the actual writing about it are separated in time.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

Actually. Greek philosophers do a whole lot of talking about the concept of God and metaphysics concerning morality and a wide range of other things. They should be equally objectionable for the most part.

The difference is that Christians claim that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and the Greek philosophers didn't, which is pretty crucial I guess.

Admittedly, I appreciate a lot of Greek philosophy, particularly Plato's Apology which accounts for the trial of Socrates.

Ickle Magoo

Improbable wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it was about the content so much as it was about the fact that the event beign written about and the actual writing about it are separated in time.

They are interlinked tho...I mean, writing from or about academic study, plato, pythagorus, is at least something we can all understand or relate to - some of which is even relevant today...claims about the supernatural have nothing, no sphere of reference. If looking for a reason why some writings are given more credence than others then surely content is just as important?

The idea that people told stories for hundreds of years, hundreds more cobbled together bit of the bible, translation after translation and we have some allegorical story about the supernatural that even the most fervent believers can't agree on is akin to writing on or about greek philosophers being greek philosophers is just odd. In my experience formal reference to quotes by the greats are "attributed to..." anyway, rather than convictions of truth and the personal certainties thrown around by certain theists.

alex73

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are we to take from that, that you can't see the major difference between biblical references to the supernatural and work by or about greek philosophers?

I believe they are both factual accounts.

philologos

Improbable wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think it was about the content so much as it was about the fact that the event beign written about and the actual writing about it are separated in time.

Again, having studied a bit of Greek philosophy at university. The differences between the manuscripts of the Greek philosophers and the Bible simply don't compare.

There are thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek and in other languages, which date far far closer to what manuscripts we have of the works of the Greek philosophers.

Much of the Greek philosophy was lost in Europe for centuries. It was brought back by the Islamic occupation of Spain and parts of Italy. The reintroduction of such texts brought about the Renaissance over time. This means that there is a huge gap between the earliest manuscripts of the Greek philosophers (Aristotle mainly) and the original. Such a gap does not exist in the case of the New Testament, where there are fragments still from the 1st century in existence.

Not only that, Aristotle's works that we do have are only his lecture notes, not his original texts which were burned in the Library of Alexandria. There are serious issues of clarity in some of his texts, when I was studying it was a section in De Anima (On the Soul) that was disputed widely.

Just to say, there really isn't a comparison. That said Aristotle's lecture notes alone have been hugely influential in European culture.

Ickle Magoo

alex73 wrote: »

I believe they are both factual accounts.

The difference being there is no argument over the existence of the greek philosophers - why do you think that is?

coffee_cake

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The difference being there is no argument over the existence of the greek philosophers - why do you think that is?

I would also think a difference is that we're more concerned with what they said rather than who they are.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The difference being there is no argument over the existence of the greek philosophers - why do you think that is?

There is :pac:

People question whether or not Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination or whether or not he actually existed. Personally I think he did, but there is a case to say that he didn't exist at all.

King Mob

Jakkass wrote: »

There is :pac:

People question whether or not Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination or whether or not he actually existed. Personally I think he did, but there is a case to say that he didn't exist at all.

Well one is a claim that some old Greek men wrote about philosophy.
And another is that a person was the son of the creator of the universe and had magic powers.

Extraordinary claims and all that....

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

There is :pac:

People question whether or not Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination or whether or not he actually existed. Personally I think he did, but there is a case to say that he didn't exist at all.

Yes, Jackass - the socratic problem aside - it is generally accepted that greek philosophers existed and that we have a representation of their work, is it not? The same cannot be said of many characters, places and events depicted in the bible, never mind supernatural claims.

bluewolf wrote:

I would also think a difference is that we're more concerned with what they said rather than who they are.

Yeah, it's the work rather than the man and magic trick giving them their place in history. Less shoe-horning too, few people start out with the purpose of desperately wanting to show plato said X or that socrates proposed Y in order to make their personal beliefs seem more rational...

coffee_cake

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yeah, it's the work rather than the man and magic trick giving them their place in history.

Yes. Regardless of whoever said what socrates & co said, the work makes sense or it doesn't, purely on its own merits. It wouldn't matter if some randomer off the street said them if it made sense.
Claims about being the son of god, however, do rest on who said them. Otherwise it's just a story about killing every member of rival nations then turning into love thy neighbour and someone claiming to be the son of god.

So to go back to the original post

ash23 wrote:

Atheists are quiet happy to quote Socrates Aristotle or Archimedes from texts that are not original.

- it doesn't matter if they weren't original. It does matter if claims about jesus were original.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, Jackass - the socratic problem aside - it is generally accepted that greek philosophers existed and that we have a representation of their work, is it not? The same cannot be said of many characters, places and events depicted in the bible, never mind supernatural claims.

Pre-Socratic philosophy is also doubtful to a degree.

The case for the Bible being authentic (being as it was since the first century) is far better than the case for Greek philosophy due to manuscript evidence. The case for the Bible amongst other ancient texts is unparalleled in this respect, both Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament.

We have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts to examine, whereas in the example of Thales (c. 600BC) who existed around the same time as Isaiah for example we only have scrapings of fragments, and secondary quotations. Nothing of the actual work itself. In terms of Isaiah, we have thousands and thousands of Hebrew manuscripts. The case in terms of authenticity really doesn't come much better than the Bible in terms of ancient texts.

The Mad Hatter

Jakkass wrote: »

Much of the Greek philosophy was lost in Europe for centuries.

What a shame - we threw the wrong one out.

krudler

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What a shame - we threw the wrong one out.

Its the first century equivalent of someone taping over your copy of The Godfather with an episode of the X Factor.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Pre-Socratic philosophy is also doubtful to a degree.

Which would tie into my thoughts regarding much of the bible that often the older the work, the less reliable it is...

Jakkass wrote: »

The case in terms of authenticity really doesn't come much better than the Bible in terms of ancient texts.

The qur'an? I thought it had managed to escape the multiple edits, choice picks of verse and mistranslations of its' christian counterpart?

I suppose if it wasn't for the well known self-driven motivations of those who changed and manipulated the bible for their own ends, the general stories at least would be infinitely more believable. However add the religious motivation, the personal interest and the huge power and money driven by biblical "truth" and you have a much different situation to that of uncovering the work of philosophers regarding their observations of humanity.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Which would tie into my thoughts regarding much of the bible that often the older the work, the less reliable it is...

The age doesn't matter in the slightest in determining how faithful it is to the original. What does matter is manuscript evidence. (Edit: The New Testament is at least 99.6% authentic on comparison with other manuscripts according to Bruce Metzger - This means that 40 verses at most are in doubt)

Bear in mind, that I actually am fascinated by Pre-Socratic philosophy. What little tiny bits we do have are very interesting. However, it cannot be guaranteed that we even have the original writing.

This is not true of the Bible. We can be very confident that we have texts that have precision to the original.

You may argue that the writing itself is completely false and a load of hogwash. As to whether or not the writings have been corrupted, or that the books were actually intended to be fiction, the case is incredibly slim.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The qur'an? I thought it had managed to escape the multiple edits, choice picks of verse and mistranslations of its' christian counterpart?

I suggest that you ask in the Islam forum to get their perspective. I've read interesting pieces about the Qur'an, and I've done a bit of research on its origins, but I think it is only fair that you go there and ask.

There hasn't been any major changes in the manuscripts of the Bible since the first century. We have evidence to back this up. For example Isaiah scroll found in 1948 being a direct match to the older manuscripts we had previous.

Translations aren't an issue either, unless you read an English translation. The Greek and Hebrew will not be affected by translation. This is why there are footnotes in the vast majority of Bibles telling you about alternative translation of certain verses. You can go right to the source either by 1) learning ancient languages, or 2) using a concordance. This isn't really much of an argument against the Bible.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suppose if it wasn't for the well known self-driven motivations of those who changed and manipulated the bible for their own ends, the general stories at least would be infinitely more believable. However add the religious motivation, the personal interest and the huge power and money driven by biblical "truth" and you have a much different situation to that of uncovering the work of philosophers regarding their observations of humanity.

Again, what evidence do you have of alteration / manipulation to the Bible?

Power and money? - You do realise when the New Testament books were written, people were actually put to death for their role in teaching them to their churches, and in evangelising the Gospel.

Likewise Old Testament prophets were sawn in half in some cases for what they taught.

There is no case for power and money in terms of the writing of the Bible.

Ickle Magoo

Lol, Jackass, new testament - that is only half the bible mate. When I look at the desperation some theists here on boards today try to twist and manipulate what's written to their own ends, I can only imagine if given the opportunity to write a version of events to pass on what nonsense they would come out with - and I actually think that isn't too far from what actually happened. Motivation is key when looking at the difference between philosophers musings and religious text.

philologos

^^ Agreed. I can only use what figures I have. I also mentioned the match between the Hebrew manuscripts found at Qum'ran and the previous Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah.

The evidence is simply overwhelming that the Bible has resisted corruption. Again, I invite you to provide evidence that the Bible is really just all changed, and none of it is from the first century.

The frustration I guess on my part to such claims is that this is an issue where there is textual evidence done, there is a lot of research behind what I'm saying. The same is probably true for Greek philosophy, because what I'm saying in respect to this is actually accepted in philosophy circles.

Ickle Magoo

The problem is Jackass, the bible isn't discussing the first century - it's discussing the creation of the universe to the birth of it's messiah a thousand years earlier. My issue isn't with whether most of the new testament has been faithfully copied between the first century and today - and to be honest I'd be reluctant even then to claim that specific manuscripts and books haven't been selected and others destroyed in that time - but how reliable are the events being discussed. A faithful representation of a fictional event is still fiction.

philologos

It appears that you're not understanding the distinction.

Textual authenticity means that the Bible has remained as it is from its first writing (not corrupted, manipulated, altered). It does not mean that what is being said is of necessity the truth. That is a separate argument. That's where I have agreement with you.

But if you doubt the case for the Bible being textually authentic, there is evidence to confirm this.

Ickle Magoo

Are you suggesting there are no lost books or lost manuscripts? No events that cannot be cross-referenced? Nothing in doubt? It would certainly be the first time I've heard such a claim.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Are you suggesting there are no lost books or lost manuscripts? No events that cannot be cross-referenced? Nothing in doubt? It would certainly be the first time I've heard such a claim.

The New Testament canon was selected from the books that were attributed to the Apostles, and the books that had evidenced usage in the churches from the first century onwards. Other gnostic texts which came centuries after Jesus was around were dismissed on that basis.

Sounds rather fair to me.

Improbable

Hang on. So by textual authenticity, which you seem to claim the bible has, there could be no mistranslations or other errors in the copying of it and such?

philologos

Mistranslations can happen between the manuscripts and the English. What I am talking about is the textual authenticity of the Greek manuscripts, and the Hebrew manuscripts that we translate the English from. This offers security in that where there is doubt in translation, we can consult the Hebrew and Greek.

Errors in copying such as typos would be a problem if we were dealing with a dozen manuscripts lets say. With 40,000 of the New Testament this becomes lessened. Remember also that in the case of the Hebrew Scriptures there are scrolls kept in every Synagogue of these texts, and of course there are other ancient manuscripts. By comparison we can see where the texts have affinity, this is how we can make the most accurate translation.

If there were any intentional manipulations or changes based on political ideology or agenda they would be caught red-handed, as there are 39,999 more which we can check to make sure that it is consistent with.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

The New Testament canon was selected from the books that were attributed to the Apostles, and the books that had evidenced usage in the churches from the first century onwards. Other gnostic texts which came centuries after Jesus was around were dismissed on that basis.

Sounds rather fair to me.

Oh good, back to the new testament only claims about a book that also consists of the OT. A lovely side-step which is an answer in itself...I suppose.

It really begs the question if the bible is textually accurate, why there is so many variations; christian, hebrew, orthodox, etc, and so much debate regarding translation...never mind all the different versions of the bible each with their own personal slant. If "the" bible even existed, never mind was textually accurate surely there would only be one version?

philologos

The Old Testament canon had already been ratified by the Rabbinate beforehand circa 450BC.

Translation is a different discussion. This is referring to the selection of Hebrew and Greek texts. Translation generally involves linguistic and theological experts sitting down for years and discussing how best to translate certain words.

As with other texts such as philosophy, there are two translation mechanisms:
1) Literal - word by word translations from Hebrew / Greek to English.
2) Interpretative - translation by spirit to allow for better reading rather than the best accuracy.

Both have their uses. This would explain why there are different translations. Secondly, each translator is going to translate the Hebrew / Greek a little bit differently, but the meaning for the most part remains intact. In any case that it doesn't commentaries / concordance comes into play to establish what the Hebrew / Greek says to allow for self-investigation.

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

The Old Testament canon had already been ratified by the Rabbinate beforehand circa 450BC.

Oh well in that case I'm convinced, the OT must be true & accurate...errr....

Jakkass wrote: »

......

Between the translational issues, the man-made acceptance or dismissal of what should be in the bible (despite claiming it to be the word of god!), you've convinced me the bible could not possibly be viewed as textually accurate in any detailed manner - subjectively accurate at best, perhaps?

Regardless - whether the biblical scribes copied faithfully or whether all manuscripts should have been included have been or indeed the consensus on a particular translation is the correct one is fairly irrelevant when viewing the bible as an interesting but largely fictional work with little to no real life relevance. :cool: