Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

[therealUT]

so any oral history is just speculation, and can not have a hint of truth?

Until it is corroborated by primary sources and/or historical fact, it is "speculation".

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Until it is corroborated by primary sources and/or historical fact, it is "speculation".

so there is zero truth to any Oral History?

 

[IPorange]

Are we really pinning down the value of "oral history," the famously soft and weakest secondary source of information?

I know an old man that swears a cabin on his property is 200 years old. It's 60 years old, verified by tree rings in the structure. Oral history gets distorted very quickly.

 

[milohimself]

Hey, you can't tell me Beowulf wasn't real.

 

[IPorange]

Hey, you can't tell me Beowulf wasn't real.

King Arthur united the island of Britain under one crown. The story refers to Roman ruins, it must be true. It's verified.

 

[ridethelightening]

Are we really pinning down the value of "oral history," the famously soft and weakest secondary source of information?

I know an old man that swears a cabin on his property is 200 years old. It's 60 years old, verified by tree rings in the structure. Oral history gets distorted very quickly.

Hard to believe one would completely write it off because it MIGHT be speculation, too. Peace to this thread. You got it all figured out.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Are we really pinning down the value of "oral history," the famously soft and weakest secondary source of information?

I know an old man that swears a cabin on his property is 200 years old. It's 60 years old, verified by tree rings in the structure. Oral history gets distorted very quickly.

not true because stories were told over and over and over again by one person to another.


Its still a source and calling it "famously soft" is your opinion

 

[IPorange]

Hard to believe one would completely write it off because it MIGHT be speculation, too. Peace to this thread. You got it all figured out.

Not at all, dude. I don't have it all figured out. It is just mind-boggling how one can be so lopsided in their logical foundations of their beliefs, yet try to act like it is anything else but pure unadulterated or mitigated faith at it's foundation. It is. Your belief system is based on the unprovable and implausible. Don't get mad because someone points that out, and don't waste time pointing out that they don't have all the answers either when they aren't claiming to.

 

[therealUT]

so there is zero truth to any Oral History?

There is the possibility of truth; there is also the possibility of falsity.

 

[IPorange]

not true because stories were told over and over and over again by one person to another.


Its still a source and calling it "famously soft" is your opinion

It's considered to be the weakest of secondary sources by historians. It's their opinion, I'm just sharing it.

 

[IPorange]

not true because stories were told over and over and over again by one person to another.


Its still a source and calling it "famously soft" is your opinion

I have some Native American legends that are oral histories that will blow your mind, btw. Since oral histories are such good sources of information.

 

[therealUT]

not true because stories were told over and over and over again by one person to another.


Its still a source and calling it "famously soft" is your opinion

Do you think the Hindu deities are real? That oral history passed down for generations.

If not, why not? If oral truth is truth, then you cannot argue one is more true than the other without some sort of corroborating evidence.

The oral histories of Hindu deities reference real places, real wars, real people, etc. Archeologists have uncovered ruins and artifacts that confirm the historical existence of these people, places, wars, etc. Yet, I presume that you do not believe in Hindu deities. Why not? Oral history "proves" their existence and their miracles.

 

[IPorange]

Do you think the Hindu deities are real? That oral history passed down for generations.

If not, why not? If oral truth is truth, then you cannot argue one is more true than the other without some sort of corroborating evidence.

The oral histories of Hindu deities reference real places, real wars, real people, etc. Archeologists have uncovered ruins and artifacts that confirm the historical existence of these people, places, wars, etc. Yet, I presume that you do not believe in Hindu deities. Why not? Oral history "proves" their existence and their miracles.

They predate Christ by thousands of years, too.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

They predate Christ by thousands of years, too.

We will then use your view that "oral history is hogwash" because the stories can get mixed up over the centuries as could be the case with Hindu because the stories were passed down over hundreds to thousands of years. Oral history of Jesus would have been passed down by one or two generations

 

[gsvol]

This just isn't true, my friend.

Most scholars agree that it IS true.

so jesus was a zombie

aim for the head

There isn't much of a comparison! Jesus reigns and He is a risen savior! What does the other do for us?

Amen brother!

The Book of James author was James, half brother of Jesus.

The book of Jude author was Jude, half brother of Jesus.

The book of Matthew author was Matthew, apostle of Jesus.

The books of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation author was John, apostle of Jesus.

The Books of 1 Peter and 2 Peter author was Peter, apostle of Jesus.

All of these authors knew Jesus personally and were eyewitness to what they wrote.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

That's what I keep telling but it's like water offf
a duck's back.

All he can do is call me a liar.

 

[IPorange]

We will then use your view that "oral history is hogwash" because the stories can get mixed up over the centuries as could be the case with Hindu because the stories were passed down over hundreds to thousands of years. Oral history of Jesus would have been passed down by one or two generations

My arguments stay the same, your arguments constantly must change. Do you see that?

 

[IPorange]

authors of the bible - Google Search

 

[ridethelightening]

Not at all, dude. I don't have it all figured out. It is just mind-boggling how one can be so lopsided in their logical foundations of their beliefs, yet try to act like it is anything else but pure unadulterated or mitigated faith at it's foundation. It is. Your belief system is based on the unprovable and implausible. Don't get mad because someone points that out, and don't waste time pointing out that they don't have all the answers either when they aren't claiming to.

Of course it's faith. Of course it is not provable. Don't act like two atoms floating in space (with zero knowledge as to why they were and where they came from) doesn't require just as much faith and is no more provable.

My mind works better with my God forming all that I see and all that I cannot. He has provided enough for me to have total assurance in my faith. If I'm wrong, well I lived a life some might find respectable. If I am right, I hope he has mercy on my soul, and yours, as well.

 

[IPorange]

Of course it's faith. Of course it is not provable. Don't act like two atoms floating in space (with zero knowledge as to why they were and where they came from) doesn't require just as much faith and is no more provable.

My mind works better with my God forming all that I see and all that I cannot. He has provided enough for me to have total assurance in my faith. If I'm wrong, well I lived a life some might find respectable. If I am right, I hope he has mercy on my soul, and yours, as well.

two atoms don't require any faith. They are there either way. Not making any assumptions on how they got there (scientific hypotheses and theories are not faith-based, rather speculation and unified observations) doesn't require any faith. Contrary to it being "no more provable," atoms HAVE been proven. where they ultimately came from has not. It may be some day. But maybe not. That's irrelevant.

It's a modern religious person's first instinct to try to cast nonbelievers to be on equal footing. I don't know if this is an intellectual insecurity issue since we live in an age of reason and science, or some latent "Pascal's Wager" thing. Not believing in a god doesn't mean I'm believing in a faith sense in something else. There is no dichotomy of "faith." I'm interacting with the world as it is, and as it presents itself. Nothing more.

Don't misunderstand my participation in these conversations as meaning I am intolerant of religion or think less of believers. I think religion and spirituality is a totally natural human institution, as a manifestation of our limitations. I just enjoy discussing these things.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

My arguments stay the same, your arguments constantly must change. Do you see that?

You say that all Oral History is junk, I say that while some oral history may be junk, some can be true.

The time difference between the oral history that I believe in and when it was written down is only a few generations at most. While your examples of "all oral history being junk" are stories that have gaps of thousands of years between when they were 1st told and eventually written down.

 

[ridethelightening]

two atoms don't require any faith. They are there either way. Not making any assumptions on how they got there (scientific hypotheses and theories are not faith-based, rather speculation and unified observations) doesn't require any faith. Contrary to it being "no more provable," atoms HAVE been proven. where they ultimately came from has not. It may be some day. But maybe not. That's irrelevant.

It's a modern religious person's first instinct to try to cast nonbelievers to be on equal footing. I don't know if this is an intellectual insecurity issue since we live in an age of reason and science, or some latent "Pascal's Wager" thing. Not believing in a god doesn't mean I'm believing in a faith sense in something else. There is no dichotomy of "faith." I'm interacting with the world as it is, and as it presents itself. Nothing more.

Don't misunderstand my participation in these conversations as meaning I am intolerant of religion or think less of believers. I think religion and spirituality is a totally natural human institution, as a manifestation of our limitations. I just enjoy discussing these things.

I know, you are just smarter than me.

 

[therealUT]

You say that all Oral History is junk, I say that while some oral history may be junk, some can be true.

The time difference between the oral history that I believe in and when it was written down is only a few generations at most. While your examples of "all oral history being junk" are stories that have gaps of thousands of years between when they were 1st told and eventually written down.

Indus Valley writing developed in 3000 BCE; 1000 years prior to developed writing in Egypt and Mesopotamia. So, these stories, however long they were passed down as oral histories are and have been "recorded oral histories" much longer than anything else.

More than a few generations passed from the "time" of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus to the time the scribes finally wrote them down in Babylon. According to the Gospels, everything about Jesus is predicated from the beginning; ergo, the time gap is more than material and relevant.

 

[droski]

The time difference between the oral history that I believe in and when it was written down is only a few generations at most.

yes, but even in today's times we've found that oral histories get exagerated over time by the followers to try to make the man/woman seem greater. see miracles performed by pope john paul or mother teresa. i'm of the belief 100% that jesus existed. IMO there is ample evidence to suggest he did. I'm just not completely sold that a) he was the son of god, b) even believed he was the son of god, and c) performaned any miracles.

 

[gsvol]

Without any primary source documents, it would be filed under "speculation".
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Since you can't compare persons and insist on
comparing religions, then lapse into an attack
on Christianity, let's speculate on; what
religion teaches it's followers to do this:

I've been having trouble multi quoting in this thread.

To 'volatile's note on fondling children:

 

[ridethelightening]

yes, but even in today's times we've found that oral histories get exagerated over time by the followers to try to make the man/woman seem greater. see miracles performed by pope john paul or mother teresa. i'm of the belief 100% that jesus existed. IMO there is ample evidence to suggest he did. I'm just not completely sold that a) he was the son of god, b) even believed he was the son of god, and c) performaned any miracles.

Quite the leap, there