Impossible Faith Redux

[TolkienFan]

Yes, it's yet another thread on the historical existence of Jesus *groan*.

As Holding has said in his Impossible Faith article, Christianity could not have succeeded unless it had the evidence of the Resurrection behind it. But now we must ask, does the mythicist position sufficiently explain the survival and flourish of Christianity? This will be according to the information laid out here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html).

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one

If Christianity was founded on a myth, you would think that the myth would have been refined. After all, if you’re going to make a religion in the ancient world founded on a myth, you should make that myth more palatable for potential converts. Whether you say Christ was crucified on earth or in some nebulous realm, you’re screwed either way. If you’re going to make up a myth in the ancient world, why say that the guy you worship went through such an extreme status degradation ritual? It’s rather counter-productive. If you’re going to make up a myth about a guy and found a religion on that myth, at least make the myth better. You could say someone assassinated him while he slept or that he was led into a trap and had his throat cut. Regardless, if you want that myth-based religion to be successful, you don’t put this element in.

Mythicists hold that the Christians believed Jesus was crucified, but only in a nebulous realm, not on earth. But they don’t see the obvious discrepancy. If you want to say he died in a realm where nobody could see him, why say he was crucified at all? Why not leave such an uncouth form of death and degradation behind. Give him a more honorable death for Pete’s sake! If Christianity was founded on a myth of such character, why did it become as successful as it did? Christianity only would have survived into the second century if they happened to have luck unequaled by anyone.

Factor #2 -- Neither Here Nor There: Or, A Man from Galilee??

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#two

Wanting a myth-based religion to be successful and saying this about your main guy don’t go hand-in-hand. Of all the places you could have picked to bring up your divine man, you choose a backwater place like Galilee and wretched town like Nazareth? If you want to keep him a Jew, at least give him a good place like Jerusalem. If you want converts outside of the Jews, give him some place at least like Athens or Rome, or even places like Corinth and Tarsus. If the Christians cared at all about success, they wouldn’t have shortchanged their mythical Messiah.

Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong "Resurrection"

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#three

If the original Christians only wanted to get Jewish converts, there would have been only one problem. There was no conception of a resurrection before the end. But that problem isn’t that bad.

If they wanted to go elsewhere, they had a huge problem. The fact that they state that their Lord was physically resurrected would have been a repulsive idea to the Gentiles. Whether this occurred on earth or in some nebulous realm, you don’t say Jesus rose from the dead. It would have been a lot better to say that his body was taken to heaven not that he rose from dead body-and-all. Simple apotheosis would have been a much better idea if you wanted Gentile converts.

Factor #4 -- What's New? What's Not Good

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#four

This of course doesn’t relate too much to the story of Jesus itself as it does the religion which spawned from it. As such, it doesn’t have too much relevance here as it deals with the teachings of Christianity, not the story of its founder.

Factor #5 -- Don't Demand Behavior

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#five

Once again, this relates to the resultant religion, not the story of the founder. This, the factor above, and a few other factors to come would simply be examples of terrible strategy by the early Christians if their religion was based on a myth (especially of this kind).

Factor #6 -- Tolerance is a Virtue

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#six

Same as #4 and #5.

Factor #7 -- Stepping Into History

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#seven

This is of course extremely relevant. If you are going to start a religion based on a myth, at no point do you deviate from the guidelines of myth. You don’t mention historical personages (and often ones that are relatively famous on top of that).

That is, unless you outright admit that it’s a myth and thus all links to historical personages are not true. But the gargantuan problem with that is that Christians were out evangelizing, passing off this story as true, not as a myth like unto the story of Hercules. Why try so hard to gain converts and risk persecution for the sake of something that you know is a myth? Also, if it was willingly admitted by a great deal of Christians (especially the foundational ones like the apostles) that this story was a myth, how good do you think this really would have done? Even if we completely disregard offensive truth claims and info about the religion’s founder, do you really think that a religion based on what was willingly admitted to be a myth would have lasted as long or gained as much strength as Christianity did?

As you can see already, if Christianity was truly based on an admitted myth, it couldn’t have done as well as it did.

Factor #8 -- Do Martyrs Matter, and More?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#eight

Though not being a factor involved with the founder’s story, this is very important. Because of the claims of Christianity, Christians were so often persecuted. If it is based on a myth, and you know and admit it, why go through this persecution? Why not just change the claims to conform to social mores? Why go through all the trouble?

But there is also another problem with this. If this was a myth and one willingly acknowledged as such, why was there persecution to begin with? The persecution was precisely because of the truth claims of Christianity after all. Making such bold and offensive truth claims and admitting that what these claims stem from is a myth doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

Factor #9 -- Human vs. Divine: Never the Twain Shall Meet!

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#nine

It would seem the mythicist position does deal with this by saying that the story of Jesus took place in some nebulous realm. Of course, this would be completely disregarding the Gospels which make a very clear connection to earthly things and to Jesus being human. But as that is outside the scope for the moment, I won’t get into that here.

Factor #10 -- No Class!

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#ten

This is the same as #4, #5, and #6.

Factor #11 -- Don't Rely on Women!

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#eleven

Now we’re back to the actual story itself. When you’re talking about the single most important event in the time of your Savior, you don’t make women your first witnesses to the risen Jesus if you are going to make up a myth about it. Even if it is a myth, it still isn’t a good idea to make such an offensive statement and still hope to gain converts. (Of course, as has already been raised, why even bother trying to evangelize like the Christians did if their foundation was an admitted myth?)

Factor #12 -- Don't Rely on Bumpkins, Either!

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#twelve

Though not as bad as women, it wasn’t a good idea to not only have such back woods people witness the Resurrection of your Savior, but also to have them be your most important members. If you want to make this an attractive myth that will make people want to join your religion (for whatever purpose), don’t make such low-class people your most important members. I mean, at the very least, you could have made it to where Joseph and Nicodemus were your most important members, not Peter and John.

Factor #13 -- You Can't Keep a Secret!

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#thirteen

This is of course related to #7 above. As the mythicists believe that the early Christians believed that this took place in some nebulous realm, it would lessen the force of this factor, but just like in #9, this is completely disregarding the Gospels which do make historical references. Of course this raises the same issue. If Christianity was based on an admitted myth, why even bother with the evangelism, the truth claims, the offensive elements of your religion and the founder’s story, etc.? It would have been amazing for Christianity to even get off the ground at all with such contradiction.

Factor #14 -- An Ignorant Deity??

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#fourteen

Yet another problem for the idea that this was a myth is why you would have your founder being an ignorant deity. This seems rather counter-productive if what you’re wanting is converts.

Factor #15 -- A Prophet Without Honor

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#fifteen

This is yet another bad choice in making up a myth. In a society where honor was so important, why have a founder that was so dishonored? Why not have one that was highly honored by his contemporaries?

Factor #16 -- Miscellaneous Contrarium

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#sixteen

Once again, if you’re going to make up a Jesus in the ancient world, don’t make him one that has such offensive teachings and actions. Breaking with the family, leaving behind one’s social network, offensive reversals of expectations like the Good Samaritan parable, fellowship with Zaccaheus (and earlier with tax collectors and “sinners”), not chastising Mary for sitting at his feet, speaking to the Samaritan woman (as well as using the same drinking utensil), and teaching being born again are all terrible things to attach to a mythical character in the ancient world. You want converts right? Well it sure doesn’t look like it. As the link shows, there are many other offensive elements associated with the story of Jesus. To say that the early Christians made up a myth like this with all of its elements and they were also able to last and become as strong as they did is, in this light, to advocate absolute nonsense.

Factor #17 -- Encouraging People to Check the Facts for Themselves

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#seventeen

This is absolutely contradictory to any concept of Jesus as a mythical figure. In 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Paul encourages the Thessalonians to prove all things and hold on to the good. If you’re advocating an admitted myth, this is an awfully foolish thing to do. Also, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans are praised for their “proofing” of the Christian claims. When you are associated with an admitted myth, this is rather nonsensical.

As you can see from these factors, Christianity could not have been founded on a myth for it to do as it has done. In fact, if it was what the mythicists claim it was, it wouldn’t have survived beyond the first or second century.

Now I’m sure that some will object that this isn’t what is claimed. Rather it is claimed (at least by Doherty’s camp, perhaps the most prolific) that Christianity started with an originally spiritual Christ and around the time the Gospels were written (with a late date assigned), he was turned into an earthly one. Of course there are still many problems with this, most already mentioned. One would have to offer some explanation as to how Christianity even survived to this time and how afterwards it became as big as it did in light of the above factors. How such a transition would have been made with the false historical claims attached to it as well as the offensive truth claims and elements and after said transition Christianity could survive and flourish needs explanation.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it's yet another thread on the historical existence of Jesus *groan*.

*groan* This is old turf. I will look over it in more detail, but in general the logic here is artificially constructed to satisfy the presupposition that the resurrection is true, and Christianity would not be here if it were not true.

Expressions like 'taking place in a nebulous realm' are quite odd. It would better to say they never took place at all. People created the myth simply because a non-miraculous life and personage has little appeal as a charismatic leader in the ancient world.

First problem there are a number of different scenarios possible of the first several hundred years of Christianity that would lead to the myths of Jesus Christ without them being true. For a religion to survive all you need is enough people to believe regardless of whether it was true or not. This is a common scenario for many cultures.

The history of China is deeply rooted in the existence of the loong (Chinese Dragon). In the ancient view everything is dependent on the existence of the loong. Is the existence of Chinese traditions and religion dependent on the existence of the loong? Does that justify the necessity of it being true? No. The belief in the people was enough to justify it's existence.

[element771]

First problem there are a number of different scenarios of the first several hundred years of Christianity that would lead to the myths of Jesus Christ without them being true. For a religion to survive all you need is enough people to believe regardless of whether it was true or not. This is a common scenario for many cultures.


But the gospels were written soon after Jesus' death. There would not have been much time for the "myths" to surface because people were still alive that witnessed the events.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by shunyadragon

*groan* This is old turf. I will look over it in more detail, but in general the logic here is artificially constructed to satisfy the presupposition that the resurrection is true, and Christianity would not be here if it were not true.

But in light of the factors laid out, it raises a very good question of how Christianity simply survived at all like it did.


Expressions like 'taking place in a nebulous realm' are quite odd. It would better to say they never took place at all. People created the myth simply because a non-miraculous life and personage has little appeal as a charismatic leader in the ancient world.

But you see, the likes of Earl Doherty say that Paul believed that the Crucifixion took place not on earth but (in my paraphrase) some nebulous realm. Hopefully though, in some future examination, you might be able to come up with a good reason of why Christianity succeeded if it was based on a myth (and a supposedly admitted one at that).


First problem there are a number of different scenarios possible of the first several hundred years of Christianity that would lead to the myths of Jesus Christ without them being true. For a religion to survive all you need is enough people to believe regardless of whether it was true or not. This is a common scenario for many cultures.

First of all, even by liberal estimates, the Gospels can be dated within the same century (i.e. at the most around 60 years for the last Gospel).

The second sentence would make sense if we were talking about your average religion. But this is Christianity, it was a very offensive religion (and it often still is). In light of the factors that have been laid out, only a few on the fringes of society might have joined the cult, but we definitely shouldn't have gotten the results we did out of Christianity. So Christianity would need some substance to back it up if it wanted to get a decent hearing.

But according to the mythicist position, the original followers didn't even believe these things to be historically true. That makes it even more unlikely in light of the factors.


The history of China is deeply rooted in the existence of the loong (Chinese Dragon). In the ancient view everything is dependent on the existence of the loong. Is the existence of Chinese traditions and religion dependent on the existence of the loong? Does that justify the necessity of it being true? No. The belief in the people was enough to justify it's existence.

This is not even a parallel. The idea of the loong was in no way offensive like the teachings and deeds of Jesus Christ and Christianity. The loong offended no one's social sensibilities, Christianity had the ability to offend everyone's social sensibilities. The Chinese had kind of an inclination to believe this because of the long tradition. However, Christianity had no long tradition, it was the new kid on the block that was offending everybody. The ancients had no real inclination to believe Christianity.

But anyway according to the mythicist position, the original followers didn't even believe these things to be historically true. Hence remains the questions of how Christianity even got off the ground and why it was so evangelistic.


Originally posted by element771

But the gospels were written soon after Jesus' death. There would not have been much time for the "myths" to surface because people were still alive that witnessed the events.

Such is the problem of trying to make up myths about historical personages. However, Doherty's position is that Jesus Christ was originally purely conceived as a spiritual being who did things in some nebulous realm. It was not until later that a transition was made to an earthly, historical Jesus. But I'm sure you can already tell that this has problems of its own.

[element771]

However, Doherty's position is that Jesus Christ was originally purely conceived as a spiritual being who did things in some nebulous realm.

Is this nebulous realm Earth? :teeth:

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by element771

Is this nebulous realm Earth?

Unfortunately no. You expect too much from Doherty. Assuming that it was believed these things took place on earth would be the logical thing to do. It's too much to expect Doherty to be logical.

[shunyadragon]

But the gospels were written soon after Jesus' death. There would not have been much time for the "myths" to surface because people were still alive that witnessed the events.

There is no evidence that the gospels as we know today existed before ~150 to 180 CE. The early church fathers referenced quotes from both the four traditional and the non-canon gospels in the second century giving sufficient time for mythologization. It is well documented that mythologization can occur in one generation. You simply need writers those that orally transmitted the stories to imbelish myths and miracles to the beliefs and text, which is common in many ancient cultures of historical figures such as the emperors of Rome.

Mythologization is simply the way of the ancient world. There is no indication in history that time is a factor.

[element771]

There is no evidence that the gospels as we know today existed before ~150 to 180 CE.

Then why do most scholars accept dates of the gospels at around 60's-80s' (in general) if there is no evidence?

[Add Homonym]

Tolk, you just have to look at Mormonism to realise that the basis of a religion can be completely weird, and it's no hinderance to the believer. When we die, we will all rule planets with our present wives. Jesus went to USA, etc.

Christianity wants you to make your world as small as possible, so you don't step back from it , and see all the other religions. Islam is founded on what one bloke said, and it contradicts the foundations of what Christians think. They don't mind at all. Scientology... no problems.

The world is 6000 years old. It's going to end SOON. There are no other religions. Thats the way all religions want you to think. Keep the blinkers on. Believe what you are told. Make your reality as small as possible. Keep arguing pointless arguments based on things which don't sound right.

For me the assassination of Christ resembles a modern conspiracy theory. You know how tenacious people are today at inventing conspiracy theories? Image back then; same thing. You wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise if you tried.

There's only one gospel and it's copied 3 times. The last one was written by a git.

Have a nice day.

That was my drive-by shooting for the day.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Add Homonym

Tolk, you just have to look at Mormonism to realise that the basis of a religion can be completely weird, and it's no hinderance to the believer. When we die, we will all rule planets with our present wives. Jesus went to USA, etc.

The problem is that we are not talking about "weird" claims. We are talking about things which utterly offended people of the time. Mormonism grew up in an entirely different social setting (individualist vs. collectivist) that had different values. Christianity had many things offensive about it, yet it was able not only to overcome those many obstacles, but it was also able to flourish. As has been shown in more depth here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose2.html), Mormonism is nowhere near the same. It had plenty of "weird" stuff about it, but not much that was actually offensive. Besides, that which was most offensive (their doctrine on polygamy) was compromised on. So there is still no parallel here.


Christianity wants you to make your world as small as possible, so you don't step back from it , and see all the other religions. Islam is founded on what one bloke said, and it contradicts the foundations of what Christians think. They don't mind at all. Scientology... no problems.

No doubt some branches do want to narrow your view of the world, but don't generalize and say the whole thing does. After all, there are all the apologists and those who read them who deal with the doctrines of other religions and answer objections to our own.


The world is 6000 years old. It's going to end SOON. There are no other religions. Thats the way all religions want you to think. Keep the blinkers on. Believe what you are told. Make your reality as small as possible. Keep arguing pointless arguments based on things which don't sound right.

Once again, you've made the mistake of generalizing from a part. Not all Christians are YEC's. There are many that are OEC's, FH's, TE's, PC's, and just regular ID's. There is a good portion of Christians that don't hold to the idea that the world is 6,000 years old.

Another generalized claim with the eschatology. Not all Christians are futurists or dispensationalists (and all but maybe a few don't believe that the world is going to "end" soon). Besides these camps, there are plenty of Orthodox Preterists, Hyper Preterists (I can't remember DD's name for them right now), some Historicists, a few Idealists, and some who just don't care that much.

I don't know many religions that want you to think that there are no other religions. What is wanted is for you to think that there are no other religions that are true (or simply as true) as yours.


For me the assassination of Christ resembles a modern conspiracy theory. You know how tenacious people are today at inventing conspiracy theories? Image back then; same thing. You wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise if you tried.

I don't know what point this is supposed to prove. But if Christianity had absolutely nothing behind it, in light of the factors mentioned, they wouldn't get a decent hearing regardless of if they made up a conspiracy theory or not. Modern American craze for conspiracy theories doesn't translate to craze for conspiracy theories in a totally different society. Talk about shrinking your reality.


There's only one gospel and it's copied 3 times. The last one was written by a git.

Nice sound-bite. This of course completely disregards all the original material in Matthew and Luke.


Have a nice day.

Hope you have one too.


That was my drive-by shooting for the day.

Sorry, but you missed.:tongue:

[Chaotic Void]

Tolk, you just have to look at Mormonism to realise that the basis of a religion can be completely weird, and it's no hinderance to the believer. When we die, we will all rule planets with our present wives. Jesus went to USA, etc.

Completely weird compared to what or whom?


Christianity wants you to make your world as small as possible, so you don't step back from it , and see all the other religions. Islam is founded on what one bloke said, and it contradicts the foundations of what Christians think. They don't mind at all. Scientology... no problems.

The world is 6000 years old. It's going to end SOON. There are no other religions. Thats the way all religions want you to think. Keep the blinkers on. Believe what you are told. Make your reality as small as possible. Keep arguing pointless arguments based on things which don't sound right.
Bolded-au Contraire; the Bible, both OT and NT, encourages critical thinking [Moses told Joshua to Meditate upon the Law, and the Psalms speak of King David Meditating upon the Law as well]. Look up the OT word for "Meditate", and while you're at it look up 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Those who say otherwise... well... I've got a nephew who wants some of what they're smoking.
Italicized-Protology and Eschatology are debateable, and perhaps semi-irrelevant considering that Christianity is based on the resurrection and not the Creation or the Apocalypse.


For me the assassination of Christ resembles a modern conspiracy theory. You know how tenacious people are today at inventing conspiracy theories? Image back then; same thing. You wouldn't be able to get a word in edgewise if you tried.
Wrong right off the bat. It was a Crucifixion, not an Assassination. And if Christianity were some whacked up cult based on a conspiracy theory, it did a pretty botched job of going about it.


There's only one gospel and it's copied 3 times. The last one was written by a git.
And to back this assertion up, you have...?


Have a nice day.
Same to you.


That was my drive-by shooting for the day.
Well, to be blunt you missed. By a Long Shot.

[shunyadragon]

Then why do most scholars accept dates of the gospels at around 60's-80s' (in general) if there is no evidence?

Scholars range in the dating of the specific of the dating of the gospels. Conservative scholars consider the gospels as original to the first century as they are traditionally believed with the traditional authors as a priori assumption and date the gospels by internal evidence of the traditional Bibles. Scholars on the most conservative extreme date all the gospels after ~200 CE based on external evidence only. Main stream scholars vary, but based on external and internal evidence available, and generally believe at least some written gospels existed between ~60 CE and ~150 CE, but the content, author and date written are unknown. The traditional gospels likely reached their present form between ~150 and ~180 CE.

[LGM]

Tolk, you just have to look at Mormonism to realise that the basis of a religion can be completely weird, and it's no hinderance to the believer. When we die, we will all rule planets with our present wives. Jesus went to USA, etc.

Christianity wants you to make your world as small as possible, so you don't step back from it , and see all the other religions. Islam is founded on what one bloke said, and it contradicts the foundations of what Christians think. They don't mind at all. Scientology... no problems.


Exactly. Like we're supposed to be all surprised when a bunch of ancient, superstitious people latch on to some apocalyptic cult leaders who promise them eternal life in exchange for feeding them.

Christianity isn't anything new, it's just another evolved religion that some fools latched onto. And it wasn't that sucessful, until it was franchised by the Roman empire and given exclusive patronage. Saying that people wouldn't believe it unless it is true is hilarious special pleading. The kind only a dolt like Holding could turn into the centerpiece of his apologetics career.

Humans believe in stupid things, and follow stupid, superstitious cult leaders...to their death. It's well documented. Google Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and have a a good looksee. Early Christianity is no more inane and stupid then believing that a spaceship is waiting behind a comet to take you to heaven after you commit suicide. Garsh...if people REALLY believed that and killed themselves...IT MUST BE TRUE!

:duh:

[lilpixieofterror]

Exactly. Like we're supposed to be all surprised when a bunch of ancient, superstitious people latch on to some apocalyptic cult leaders who promise them eternal life in exchange for feeding them.

Classic Georgie boy,

Make an assertion without evidence, be sure to insult every Christian you disagree with, and be sure to be as rude and hateful as you can be.

:rofl: So Georgie, how does it feel to be free from all prejudice, unlike the typical bigoted Christian?

:pix:

[LGM]

Make an assertion without evidence,

What kind of evidence are you looking for lilgreasemonkeyofwretchedgrammar?



be sure to insult every Christian you disagree with, and be sure to be as rude and hateful as you can be.

Me? Hateful? No way...You're my sweet little thing, and I'm your little Georgia boy.


So Georgie, how does it feel to be free from all prejudice, unlike the typical bigoted Christian?

Where did I ever say I was free from all prejudice?

Sorry lilbabblingmoronoferror, I'm plenty biased and prejudiced.

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Now...where's my sandwich? And please make sure and wear some latex gloves when you make it this time. Last time the bread was all greasy.

:b_evil: :pix:

[lilpixieofterror]

What kind of evidence are you looking for lilgreasemonkeyofwretchedgrammar?

Any you can provide lilunabletoansweranyargumentthatprovesyouwrong


Me? Hateful? No way...You're my sweet little thing, and I'm your little Georgia boy.

Here comes the idiocy!


Where did I ever say I was free from all prejudice?

Sorry lilbabblingmoronoferror, I'm plenty biased and prejudiced.

So georgie is special and above the rules and standards he lays down for others! :lol: :lol: :lol: So will you tell me why it's ok for you to be biased and prejudice while you condemn Christians for the same thing? Thanks for prove your a hypocrite that is unable to follow his own standards.


I'm glad we've cleared that up.

That you're an hypocrite? Yep, cleared that up quite well, thanks! :thumb:


Now...where's my sandwich? And please make sure and wear some latex gloves when you make it this time. Last time the bread was all greasy.

:lmbo: And georgie dodges again! Notice how he'll avoid proving his assertions thought the rest of this thread and just throw in a flame war. So predictable... so he'll go on for awhile about poor spelling (while being unable to provide one example of what makes it so hard for him to understand), show his hate towards Christians and Christianity in general, he'll rant a bit, make some stupid comments about my job (that I doubt he'd last a day in) and run away to flame in another thread. Pure Entertainment and yet so predictable...

:pix:

[LGM]

Any you can provide lilunabletoansweranyargumentthatprovesyouwrong

Lilpixie wanna cracker?

What a cute little parrot you are. If only you were a little smaller, I'd keep you in a cage in my office.



Here comes the idiocy!

Thanks for warning us, but we can all see you've entered the thread.



So georgie is special and above the rules and standards he lays down for others!

What 'rules' and 'standards' do I lay down lilparrotofblather?

I'm not in the rules business. I have no authority to set any standards. It seems the fumes from the turbine exhaust are starting to attack the last functioning neuron in your 'brian'.

:lol:




So will you tell me why it's ok for you to be biased and prejudice while you condemn Christians for the same thing?

I'm just pointing it out, just like I enjoy pointing out your hilarious malapropisms and wretched grammar.

I’m not condemning you, I’m amused by you. You have me all wrong.



Thanks for prove your a hypocrite that is unable to follow his own standards.

Thanks for another example of your erudite prose.



And georgie dodges again! Notice how he'll avoid proving his assertions thought the rest of this thread and just throw in a flame war.

Pixie…so far I’ve only asserted that you’re a hilarious, grammar impaired dolt, who can’t tell a 'Brian' from a 'Brain'.

The evidence for my ‘assertions’ are in your posts.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

Exactly. Like we're supposed to be all surprised when a bunch of ancient, superstitious people latch on to some apocalyptic cult leaders who promise them eternal life in exchange for feeding them.

This answers why they accepted something so offensive to them how?


Christianity isn't anything new, it's just another evolved religion that some fools latched onto. And it wasn't that sucessful, until it was franchised by the Roman empire and given exclusive patronage. Saying that people wouldn't believe it unless it is true is hilarious special pleading. The kind only a dolt like Holding could turn into the centerpiece of his apologetics career.

But please provide an actual explanation as to how it even survived until your imaginary point in time. Seeing as how it was so offensive, it shouldn't have survived in it's capacity until the time of Constantine (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to). Also, on what basis do you claim it wasn't successful?

The thing is, if it didn't have truth behind it, how did it survive in the face of such conditions?


Humans believe in stupid things, and follow stupid, superstitious cult leaders...to their death. It's well documented. Google Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite and have a a good looksee. Early Christianity is no more inane and stupid then believing that a spaceship is waiting behind a comet to take you to heaven after you commit suicide. Garsh...if people REALLY believed that and killed themselves...IT MUST BE TRUE!

Oh, so now just because some people believe crazy things, that means everyone believes them? What makes atheism safe from that? So now if I want to argue against the truth of atheism, all I have to do is say I think it's crazy, point to crazy beliefs in the past and suddenly I have completely disproven atheism? Wow! That's pretty easy.

Aside from that fallacy, Jones et al. 1) didn't teach things that offended social sensibilities like Christianity did and 2) didn't survive and flourish like Christianity did. Go ahead LGM, show us all how they are true parallels. It should be interesting to see.

Your oversimplification of the matter is both hilarious and sickening. But then again, I guess that describes just about all of your posts. It seems that all you're interested in doing is being a troll and shooting off insults at anyone who is a Christian any chance you can get. It's embarassing. You contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[LGM]

This answers why they accepted something so offensive to them how?

How is some Pharisee wannabe promising a bunch of pagan peasants a pleasant eternal life offensive?

The people who found it offensive didn't sign up. Which would include the vast majority of mainstream Judaism.



But please provide an actual explanation as to how it even survived until your imaginary point in time.

How does any religion survive? There's nothing special about Christianity. It was a bunch of messianic/apocalyptic/afterlife cults. It survived because it offered people a benefit, like any religion.



Seeing as how it was so offensive, it shouldn't have survived in it's capacity until the time of Constantine (which I'm assuming is what you're referring to). Also, on what basis do you claim it wasn't successful?

You're the one claiming it was so offensive. Obviously it wasn't offensive to some. There's no evidence that the people who joined Paul's fledgling cults had any knowledge of Jesus alleged earthly resurrection, nor is there any evidence they found a crucified savior god any more offensive than people worshipping Attis found a savior god who allegedly castrated himself offensive.

Who are you or Holding to declare what ancient people found offensive? You haven't a clue, you don't know or speak for these people, and you have no evidence that everyone would find such an idea offensive.



The thing is, if it didn't have truth behind it, how did it survive in the face of such conditions?

What conditions?

The ancient Egyptian religions, the Greek religions and the Hindu religions have all flourished in their time, for longer than Christianity. So WHAT? Your species believes in silly crap. It's well documented. You can't special plead that your particular brand of silly crap must be TRUE, because people believed it. :duh:

That's hilarious special pleading. Look it up.



Oh, so now just because some people believe crazy things, that means everyone believes them?

No...me and lots of other sane, rational people don't believe your ignorant superstitions and incoherent fairytales.

No...it takes a special kind of credophile to be a YEC in the year 2008. But yet your religion is made up of LOTS of them. Perhaps the majority. People are incredibly stupid and they believe in stupid things, that other people believe in...because they can't think critically or for themselves. Maybe you're one? Maybe that's why you have to borrow a warmed over Holding screed instead of writing something ORIGINAL?



What makes atheism safe from that? So now if I want to argue against the truth of atheism, all I have to do is say I think it's crazy, point to crazy beliefs in the past and suddenly I have completely disproven atheism? Wow! That's pretty easy.

Sorry you're so confused. Atheism doesn't posit ANY beliefs. Atheism is being skeptical of the CLAIMS of countless theists and their countless inane theologies.

If you're going to argue against atheism , you should at least learn what the word pertains to.



Aside from that fallacy, Jones et al. 1) didn't teach things that offended social sensibilities like Christianity did

Really? So leave your family and country and move to an isolated compound in South America with some nutjob wanted on tax evasion is a SENSIBLE thing to do. And then commit mass suicide when he asks you to.

Thanks for amusing me. You're either a nutjob, or this is the worst case of special pleading I've ever seen.

Last I checked, Paul didn't ask anyone in Corinth to quit their day jobs and move to Africa with him. In fact, he didn't even require his pagan cult members to get their foreskin's snipped.



and 2) didn't survive and flourish like Christianity did. Go ahead LGM, show us all how they are true parallels. It should be interesting to see.

I've already given several examples of religions and crazy beliefs that have convinced people to believe crazy crapola and even kill themselves over it.

Mormonism, the Unification Church, Islam, Scientology, Raelians...sorry TF, crazy, stupid humans are a dime a dozen. Modern Christians almost look sane next to some of these popular religions.



Your oversimplification of the matter is both hilarious and sickening.

I've oversimplified NOTHING little one.

I've sliced thru the heart of your ignorant special pleading, and now your weak, recycled claptrap lies mortally wounded on the floor.

The ONLY thing that made Christianity REALLY succesful was exclusive Roman patronage of ONE specific Christian brand.

If the Roman Empire patronized Attis as the state sponsored god and religion, dolts like you and Holding would be here defending how it MUST be true, because no one would want to believe in a god who CASTRATED himself.



But then again, I guess that describes just about all of your posts. It seems that all you're interested in doing is being a troll and shooting off insults at anyone who is a Christian any chance you can get. It's embarassing. You contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I'm interested in making you and your hilarious special pleading look foolish. And I've succeeded. I understand why you're upset. You don't have the evidence or the intellect to defend your warmed-over Holding crapola, so you're lashing out at me and calling me names.

How very Christian of you.

[lilpixieofterror]

Lilpixie wanna cracker?

What a cute little parrot you are. If only you were a little smaller, I'd keep you in a cage in my office.

Awww, how cute... he can't provide anything beyond mere assertions so he'll not do it and rant some more. Come on now Georgie... prove your assertions by giving just one piece of evidence that proves you right. Or you can just admit you're a troll who does not care and just wants to troll as much as possible... So what one is it? Will you give just one single shred of evidence to back up your assertions?

[LGM]

Awww, how cute... he can't provide anything beyond mere assertions so he'll not do it and rant some more. Come on now Georgie... prove your assertions by giving just one piece of evidence that proves you right.

The evidence that you are a parrot mimicking my insults of you, such as lilparrotofblather, is in your last post when you called me "lilunabletoansweranyargumentthatprovesyouwrong".

Was there anything else lilmoron?
Were you actually going to MAKE an ACTUAL 'argument' dealing with the OP?

Or are you just here to stalk me like a little babbling twit?

At least TolkienFan has made a REAL fallacious argument and is attempting to defend it, and for that I suppose I should be thankful.

So why don't you run along and work on your homework? I would check your grammar again.

[lilpixieofterror]

The evidence that you are a parrot mimicking my insults of you, such as lilparrotofblather, is in your last post when you called me "lilunabletoansweranyargumentthatprovesyouwrong".

Such an original insult from the master mind of the great Georgie boy! Who would of thought of making a parody of my name! Georgie is so intelligent! All bow before his superior intelligence and arguments! :lmbo: :lmbo:

And he dodges again! Notice how he doesn't like his own hate and attitude reflected back in his face for him to see? You can dish it out but you're incapable of taking what you dish onto others, eh? Thanks for showing everyone yet another fact, you can dish it out, but incapable of taking it. :thumb:


Were you actually going to MAKE an ACTUAL 'argument' dealing with the OP?

You have no argument Georgie, it's just assertions throw in with your typical hateful and bigoted attitude towards anything and everything you disagree with. Show me you can be the least bit civil by cleaning up your consistent ad hominem's and actually back up your conclusions with facts, I might bother to answer you. For now I am only interested in pointing out your bigoted and hateful attitude you displayed with your post.


Or are you just here to stalk me like a little babbling twit?

No stupid, I am giving you the treatment you earn. You treat everyone like garbage, you refuse to engage in their points, you refuse to be the least bit civil, you refuse to show respect to beliefs you disagree with, among other things. You're a troll and a jerk who deserves everything he earns from myself and everyone in here. When you can prove you can be civil and not resorting to name calling (while you get all hissy about me doing it to you) than I'll leave you alone. Until that time everytime I see you make a stupid remark, I will respond in kind. Now hateful bigot, are you going to do that or display yet again you don't care about any kind of conversation, but you're trying to troll and upset as many people as possible?

:pix:

I cut out must of your mindless prattle and ad hominems, I grow rather tried of watching you do the things you condemn me for, but that's ok... it's you... not me... so that makes it ok. :ahem:

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

How is some Pharisee wannabe promising a bunch of pagan peasants a pleasant eternal life offensive?

The people who found it offensive didn't sign up. Which would include the vast majority of mainstream Judaism.

Obviously that's not one of the factors. If you bothered to actually read, you would know that.


How does any religion survive? There's nothing special about Christianity. It was a bunch of messianic/apocalyptic/afterlife cults. It survived because it offered people a benefit, like any religion.

But how did it survive in spite of the factors laid out in the OP? A possible benefit of what was yet another religion isn't anything special. A potential benefit that came from such an offensive group wouldn't have much standing if there was nothing behind it. Once again, you have failed to provide a sufficient explanation of how Christianity not only survived for so long, but flourished.


You're the one claiming it was so offensive. Obviously it wasn't offensive to some. There's no evidence that the people who joined Paul's fledgling cults had any knowledge of Jesus alleged earthly resurrection, nor is there any evidence they found a crucified savior god any more offensive than people worshipping Attis found a savior god who allegedly castrated himself offensive.

Who are you or Holding to declare what ancient people found offensive? You haven't a clue, you don't know or speak for these people, and you have no evidence that everyone would find such an idea offensive.

It's not I or Holding who claim that these things were offensive. It is the scholars who Holding cites. As they have much much more experience and knowledge in the field than we do, why shouldn't we listen to them? Or do you have someone who can sufficiently undermine their conclusions? Or do you just like shooting the messenger?

"Obviously it wasn't offensive to some." At best, maybe a few on the fringe of society might not have found it so offensive. But why do you say it must not have been offensive to some? Simply because it succeeded? That goes nowhere in explaining how it succeeded.

But what do you mean by "there's no evidence?" What do you expect exactly? Random notes found in the Near East that say, "Hey, I'm [insert name here], a member of the church in [insert location here] and I believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, died, and was resurrected."

As for your analogy to Attis, let me ask you this. How big was the cult of Attis? How long did it last? Do you see a church of Attis today? How exactly could you maintain that the cult of Attis was just as offensive as Christianity? Even if your point of comparison between castration and crucifxion was valid (which it is not), there's still plenty of other factors my friend. It won't do to simply read a few lines and attempt to refute the entire argument.


What conditions?

The ancient Egyptian religions, the Greek religions and the Hindu religions have all flourished in their time, for longer than Christianity. So WHAT? Your species believes in silly crap. It's well documented. You can't special plead that your particular brand of silly crap must be TRUE, because people believed it.

That's hilarious special pleading. Look it up.

Why even bother to tune in when you're not going to pay attention? They are all there in the OP, try reading for once.

Once again you have flawed analogies. Egyptian religions, Greek religions, and Hinduism were all widely accepted by the societies they grew up in. They made no offensive claims like Chrisitanity did. Christianity was the new kid on the block that was offending everybody with several outrageous claims. None of your examples are like this. Would you mind producing evidence that such ideas espoused by these belief systems were offensive?

You're posts have been nothing but sad displays of ignorance. Try reading, it's not that hard.


No...me and lots of other sane, rational people don't believe your ignorant superstitions and incoherent fairytales.

No...it takes a special kind of credophile to be a YEC in the year 2008. But yet your religion is made up of LOTS of them. Perhaps the majority. People are incredibly stupid and they believe in stupid things, that other people believe in...because they can't think critically or for themselves. Maybe you're one? Maybe that's why you have to borrow a warmed over Holding screed instead of writing something ORIGINAL?

Sane? Rational? You hardly qualify on either count.

What a blatherskite? Is there any hope for substance in your posts?

But your whole insult about me being un-original, how does that refute the argument presented? Regardless, I was original in that I took that argument and applied the criteria like Holding hasn't done before (probably didn't see the need). If you spent half as much time on actual argument as you do on personal attacks, you might actually have decent posts that are actually worth reading and responding to. Unfortunately, it seems I like torturing myself in responding to your inane posts.


Sorry you're so confused. Atheism doesn't posit ANY beliefs. Atheism is being skeptical of the CLAIMS of countless theists and their countless inane theologies.

If you're going to argue against atheism , you should at least learn what the word pertains to.

Of course atheism posits beliefs. It posits the belief that God does not exist and it posits various sub-beliefs for why atheists believe this.


Really? So leave your family and country and move to an isolated compound in South America with some nutjob wanted on tax evasion is a SENSIBLE thing to do. And then commit mass suicide when he asks you to.

Thanks for amusing me. You're either a nutjob, or this is the worst case of special pleading I've ever seen.

Last I checked, Paul didn't ask anyone in Corinth to quit their day jobs and move to Africa with him. In fact, he didn't even require his pagan cult members to get their foreskin's snipped.

Socially offensive? Hardly. Leaving your family and country (or more properly, telling your members to) is not a socially offensive claim. Suicide was also not involved in the claims. This was demanded of people who were already members. The Jonestown cult wasn't going around positing any theology about suicide before the mass suicide. Once again, your analogy is hopelessly flawed.

I say you're mentally challenged and what do I prove? Does it even matter what your personal opinion of me is?

Well, Paul was an adherent and active leader of a belief system that actually did make socially offensive claims. Your attempt at a clever rebuttal has utterly failed.


I've already given several examples of religions and crazy beliefs that have convinced people to believe crazy crapola and even kill themselves over it.

Mormonism, the Unification Church, Islam, Scientology, Raelians...sorry TF, crazy, stupid humans are a dime a dozen. Modern Christians almost look sane next to some of these popular religions.

You've misunderstood it the same way Add Homonym did. It's not about crazy or weird claims, it's about claims that are outright offensive. Once you actually give a decent parallel of a religion that made outright offensive claims and survived and flourished like Christianity did, we might have a serious discussion on our hands for once.

"Stupid humans are a dime a dozen." I know, I'm talking to one right now.


I've oversimplified NOTHING little one.

I've sliced thru the heart of your ignorant special pleading, and now your weak, recycled claptrap lies mortally wounded on the floor.

The ONLY thing that made Christianity REALLY succesful was exclusive Roman patronage of ONE specific Christian brand.

If the Roman Empire patronized Attis as the state sponsored god and religion, dolts like you and Holding would be here defending how it MUST be true, because no one would want to believe in a god who CASTRATED himself.

Most of your rant has been oversimplification. You find a cult that many find crazy and you fallaciously posit it as a parallel to Christianity. You do this by gross and incorrect oversimplification.

Nice delusion. What are you smoking, I know some people who'd like to try it.

You mind actually proving that assertion? But even if your assertion is correct, the obvious question is how Christianity even survived until that date.

You think so huh? I wonder how you actually know that. Or are you just pulling this out of your behind? Even if castration was a sufficient parallel to crucifixion (which from what I can tell, it's not), that's just one parallel, you still have more than a dozen more. Any luck on the factors that weren't part of the few sentences you read?


I'm interested in making you and your hilarious special pleading look foolish. And I've succeeded. I understand why you're upset. You don't have the evidence or the intellect to defend your warmed-over Holding crapola, so you're lashing out at me and calling me names.

How very Christian of you.

Well if you want to make it look foolish, you have to prove it wrong first. By all means try. If I'm wrong, I don't mind being corrected. But you haven't proven me wrong.

Succeeded huh? Well, I don't think so, but that's not important. It's not important what you or I think about how we did. It matters how the audience sees it.

Upset? I'm not butt-hurt about any alleged annihilation of my arguments. I'm only annoyed that you come in here and troll around like you do simply because you're looking for any possible vent for your insults against Christianity. I'm interested in a serious discussion here to see if anyone can refute the argument. Anything that could be considered an insult in my posts has been my simple honest perception of your posts. Even so, that only takes up a small portion of what I've written. If you had extended simple courtesy instead of lashing out at Christians every chance you get, there wouldn't be any insults here. You could have avoided personal attacks and your posts would have lost nothing. If someone shows a simple, civil attitude and interest in actually debating the topic at hand, I won't lash out at them.

I could turn that psychoanalysis around on you just as easily and it would prove...nothing, absolutely nothing.

Note: It wouldn't hurt to actually listen to Pixie's advice.

[LGM]

Obviously that's not one of the factors. If you bothered to actually read, you would know that.

Sorry, I'm not limited to whatever imaginary 'factors' you'd like to constrain the argument to.



But how did it survive in spite of the factors laid out in the OP?

It survived by offering people the benefit of a pleasant eternal life in exchange for their patronage.

Again, what's so hard to understand? It's the EXACT same thing that attracts and keeps selfish, pew warmers like you putting money in the collection plate. You crave eternal life, and some cult leader promises it to you for attending his cult’s meetings. What could be easier?

Obviously the myth of some crucified savior god was NOT offensive to lots of people, just like the myth of a self castrated savior god WASN'T offensive to lots of people, just like leaving your country, job and family and following a nutjob cult leader named Jim Jones to a remote compound in South America WASN'T that offensive to the 900+ people who did that.

Again, it is YOU, er, I mean Holding, who HASN'T established your faulty premise that there were people, who despite no first hand, or even second, knowledge of any alleged supernatural resurrection of any earthly Jesus, still signed up and joined Paul's fledgling CULTS. And they joined other cults that promised them the SAME exact things.

It's YOU who can't even establish that PAUL had any first hand knowledge of an earthly Jesus resurrection, yet HE was the one who allegedly invented several of these fledgling cults!

So please, YOU have no evidence to support your, er, I mean Holding's, proposition that ALL people would find Paul's messianic savior god any more objectionable than they found Attis or Osiris or Mithras or any other savior gods of their day.

It’s SPECIAL PLEADING….look it up. Your whole argument is based on a faulty premise, a complete dearth of evidence to support it, and fallacious reasoning.



A possible benefit of what was yet another religion isn't anything special.

That’s right, it still isn’t anything special. Just the same ole, same ole, crapola. Yet folks like you lap it up. As I said, people are superstitious, they are stupid, they’re frightened by the thought of death, and they believe incredibly foolish things with NO evidence. That’s what religion is, that’s all that Christianity is.



A potential benefit that came from such an offensive group wouldn't have much standing if there was nothing behind it.

The only thing behind it is charismatic, passionate men spewing crap. And people BELIEVE them. A lot of people are SHEEP. They are always looking to be part of something they think is BIG and important, they are taken in by charismatic BLOWHARDS who claim to speak for the one true god and offer them immortality.

That’s what is ‘standing behind’ all religion. Check your TV stations on Sunday mornings….the airwaves are FILLED with them.



Once again, you have failed to provide a sufficient explanation of how Christianity not only survived for so long, but flourished.

How is it that Christianity ‘flourished’? Where is YOUR evidence to support that?

Why don’t you provide me the number of Christians that existed in 150AD?

You have no clue, so please don’t pull some number out of your rectum, or quote some apologist who pulled one out of his.

Christianity wasn’t ‘flourishing’ in the second and third centuries, and was FAR from some united orthodox church before Constantine chose one specific brand and patronized it. There were Gnostics, Marcionites, and more Christologies than you could shake a stick at. Yet allegedly there was one well known god-man, and one incredibly well attested resurrection behind all these various and vast different sects and cults. Yet here were all these sects who were already claiming that Jesus wasn’t really human, that he didn’t really have a human body, or that he wasn’t really the son of the evil and mean YWHW god of the OT.

Sorry, the evidence is that there was no Early Christianity, there were lots of fledgling ANE messianic savior cults led by snakeoil salesmen making up their own crapola and peddling it to whatever local gullible peasant would listen and put a denarius in the collection plate. Same ole, same ole.




It's not I or Holding who claim that these things were offensive. It is the scholars who Holding cites.

Sorry, don’t give a crap about what Holding or unnamed ‘scholars’ say. What did the PEOPLE say? Got any actual TEXTUAL evidence from a FIRST CENTURY Christian convert saying that HE found the idea of crucified savior god incredibly OFFENSIVE, but he just HAD to believe, because HE SAW Jesus die on the cross, then HE saw him the next week, trampin’ on the road to Galilee and then FLY up into the sky?

No. You’ve got NOTHING. No evidence at all. Just ‘scholarly’ SPECULATION, special pleading and conjecture. Your argument isn’t based on ANY evidence. NONE. ZIP. NADA.

When you get some REAL textual evidence to support it, let me know. In the meantime, superstitious, gullible people believe ridiculous things that other people tell them. ESPECIALLY if there is an incredible BENEFIT to believing them, like the promise of a pleasant ETERNAL life. That is well DOCUMENTED. Islamic morons blow themselves up EVERYDAY because they believe it.




As they have much much more experience and knowledge in the field than we do, why shouldn't we listen to them? Or do you have someone who can sufficiently undermine their conclusions? Or do you just like shooting the messenger?

Listen to whom? You haven’t cited ANY authority, and since NO ONE is an authority on what EVERYONE in the first century might have found offensive, your fallacious appeal to an unnamed authority is just another example of your incredibly LAME fallacious argument.

You really don’t have ANYTHING…do you?



"Obviously it wasn't offensive to some." At best, maybe a few on the fringe of society might not have found it so offensive.

Again, it’s up to YOU to establish why someone needs to be on the ‘fringe’ of society to not find joining some messianic/apocalyptic cult offensive. The fringe of WHAT society? You think inner city Rome, and rural Syria, and northern Egypt were all one big ‘society’? Do you think all these cult members were all believing the SAME things about these various messianic cults they patronized? You think someone in 200AD in Egypt had any access to ANYONE who had witnessed any ALLEGED resurrection of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth? No. Because you’re a simpleton. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about, you are simply MAKING up just so stories, and desperately trying to oversimplify a complex, multidimensional cultural phenomenon, to try and fit your INANE a-priori conclusion.

Sorry…not falling for it.




But why do you say it must not have been offensive to some? Simply because it succeeded? That goes nowhere in explaining how it succeeded.

I’ve already explained why people join religious cults. Sorry you don’t like the answer. It would be up to YOU to demonstrate why the exact same people who would join a cult and worship a god who castrated himself, wouldn’t join the cult of a crucified savior god. Sorry…YOU CAN’T.



But what do you mean by "there's no evidence?" What do you expect exactly? Random notes found in the Near East that say, "Hey, I'm [insert name here], a member of the church in [insert location here] and I believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, died, and was resurrected."

How about ANY authentic, contemporary correspondence where some claims to have WITNESSED the risen Jesus, in the FLESH, not in a VISION, and that provides the same kinds of DETAILS about an earthly Jesus passion story and biography as found in the anonymous, late first century gospels?

There are none. You have NO evidence. You have NO one saying they witnessed any EARTHLY resurrection. You have Paul who claims he saw Jesus in a ‘vision’, and that every other disciple had a ‘vision’. Big whoop. Lying cult leaders and there ‘visions’.
Can you say Reverend Moon? Yeah…that kind of crap fools lots of gullible people. And viola!...next thing you know there are a million Moonies runnin’ around in the span of 20 years.



As for your analogy to Attis, let me ask you this. How big was the cult of Attis?

How big was it when? Where?

We don’t KNOW. Just like YOU don’t KNOW how big any Christian cult was in any place or any point of time.

So please, don’t PRETEND you have ANY kind of accurate census figures that detail religious affiliation in the Roman Empire from 100-350 AD. You DON’T. And if you PRETEND you do, you are just MAKING up more crap to support your fallacious A-PRIORI conclusion.



How long did it last? Do you see a church of Attis today? How exactly could you maintain that the cult of Attis was just as offensive as Christianity? Even if your point of comparison between castration and crucifxion was valid (which it is not), there's still plenty of other factors my friend. It won't do to simply read a few lines and attempt to refute the entire argument.

Please, I’m not your friend. You haven’t MADE any argument. You haven’t SHOWN any evidence that people would find a crucified savior god any more offensive than a self castrated one. You haven’t SHOWN that Christianity was any more successful than any other mystery or savior cult from that time period.

The REASON there are no Churches of Mithras or Attis or Osiris or Jupiter…is because one Christianity was made the OFFICIAL religion of the empire, it proceeded to PERSECUTE every other religion until they were all out of business.

You are a Christian, because a murderous, pagan, Roman emperor and his superstitious mommy took a liking to a certain messianic savior cult that served his political purposes.

If he had chosen to franchise the cult of Attis, you’d be an apologist for that religion.

Why do YOU believe Christianity? Why do you not find it OFFENSIVE? You have obviously no compelling evidence that supports the alleged resurrection of any earthly Jesus or the even more hilarious story of him ‘flying’ in his physical human body up into the clouds and off to ‘heaven’.

Yet you believe IT.



Why even bother to tune in when you're not going to pay attention? They are all there in the OP, try reading for once.

There’s no evidence in your OP. There’s not a single quote from a single Christian convert claiming that he found a crucified savior god incredibly offensive, but still joined because he had FIRST HAND knowledge of the ACTUAL physical resurrection of one Jesus of Nazareth.

So all the rest of your blather is just baseless speculation, special pleading, conjecture and your own invented ‘just-so’ stories all designed to support you’re a-priori conclusion that people wouldn’t join some messianic/apocalyptic cult because the savior god was such a loser. Sorry…when you have some evidence, let me know.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

Sorry, I'm not limited to whatever imaginary 'factors' you'd like to constrain the argument to.

I'm saying that this promise of eternal life wasn't something working against them. Will you always have such a problem with comprehension?


It survived by offering people the benefit of a pleasant eternal life in exchange for their patronage.

Again, what's so hard to understand? It's the EXACT same thing that attracts and keeps selfish, pew warmers like you putting money in the collection plate. You crave eternal life, and some cult leader promises it to you for attending his cult’s meetings. What could be easier?

Obviously the myth of some crucified savior god was NOT offensive to lots of people, just like the myth of a self castrated savior god WASN'T offensive to lots of people, just like leaving your country, job and family and following a nutjob cult leader named Jim Jones to a remote compound in South America WASN'T that offensive to the 900+ people who did that.

Again, it is YOU, er, I mean Holding, who HASN'T established your faulty premise that there were people, who despite no first hand, or even second, knowledge of any alleged supernatural resurrection of any earthly Jesus, still signed up and joined Paul's fledgling CULTS. And they joined other cults that promised them the SAME exact things.

It's YOU who can't even establish that PAUL had any first hand knowledge of an earthly Jesus resurrection, yet HE was the one who allegedly invented several of these fledgling cults!

So please, YOU have no evidence to support your, er, I mean Holding's, proposition that ALL people would find Paul's messianic savior god any more objectionable than they found Attis or Osiris or Mithras or any other savior gods of their day.

It’s SPECIAL PLEADING….look it up. Your whole argument is based on a faulty premise, a complete dearth of evidence to support it, and fallacious reasoning.

You still don't get it do you? One benefit offered by basically every religion isn't enough to overcome the factors laid out in the OP.

What makes you assume I'm selfish? Or is this just another baseless ad hominem attack?

What makes you say obviously? The scholars Holding cites show it was a tough stigma of the day. Not one that would be obviously non-offensive to so many people.

You still fail to understand that castration wasn't an offensive idea, nor was anything you cited about the Jonestown cult even remotely possible to deem offensive. The Jonestown cult was making demands of its members, not offensive claims that counted as beliefs. Do you even know anything about the People's Temple of Jim Jones.

This whole screed about what is supposedly failed to establish is not at issue here. This imaginary problem has been dealt with in numerous threads as it is. This thread is about how Christianity succeeded at all, especially if the Christ-myth thesis was true. Sorry, but I have no interest in derailing my own thread. Proof has been offered various other places, I suggest you look around. If that's too much for you to do, then why bother coming in pretending to know what you're talking about?

It is the Christ-myth thesis that has no evidence behind it.

I rely on the same scholars he does. If you can show that they're wrong, by all means, be my guest.

But you have a terrible ability of analogizing. You fail to realize that none of these cults made offensive claims (unless you wish to present evidence that they did). They were nothing like Christianity whatsoever.

Please feel free to demonstrate how my argument involves special pleading, zero evidence, and fallacious reasoning. You've failed so far, but if you can actually show it to be wrong, I'll abandon it.


That’s right, it still isn’t anything special. Just the same ole, same ole, crapola. Yet folks like you lap it up. As I said, people are superstitious, they are stupid, they’re frightened by the thought of death, and they believe incredibly foolish things with NO evidence. That’s what religion is, that’s all that Christianity is.

Blah, blah, blah. Anytime you want to stop ranting and actually reasonably arguing the points at hand, I'll be waiting.


The only thing behind it is charismatic, passionate men spewing crap. And people BELIEVE them. A lot of people are SHEEP. They are always looking to be part of something they think is BIG and important, they are taken in by charismatic BLOWHARDS who claim to speak for the one true god and offer them immortality.

That’s what is ‘standing behind’ all religion. Check your TV stations on Sunday mornings….the airwaves are FILLED with them.

Charismatic, passionate men don't make something overcome stigma. Do you think a charismatic and passionate man talking about the acceptability of pedophilia would overcome the stigma against it? Personally, I'm not given over to emotion so charismatic people don't really do anything for me.


How is it that Christianity ‘flourished’? Where is YOUR evidence to support that?

Why don’t you provide me the number of Christians that existed in 150AD?

You have no clue, so please don’t pull some number out of your rectum, or quote some apologist who pulled one out of his.

Christianity wasn’t ‘flourishing’ in the second and third centuries, and was FAR from some united orthodox church before Constantine chose one specific brand and patronized it. There were Gnostics, Marcionites, and more Christologies than you could shake a stick at. Yet allegedly there was one well known god-man, and one incredibly well attested resurrection behind all these various and vast different sects and cults. Yet here were all these sects who were already claiming that Jesus wasn’t really human, that he didn’t really have a human body, or that he wasn’t really the son of the evil and mean YWHW god of the OT.

Sorry, the evidence is that there was no Early Christianity, there were lots of fledgling ANE messianic savior cults led by snakeoil salesmen making up their own crapola and peddling it to whatever local gullible peasant would listen and put a denarius in the collection plate. Same ole, same ole.

The obvious fact that Christianity spread so far and wide even by the end of the first century. There were churches not only around Judea, but in Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Britain, Egypt, India, and everywhere in between. Even if there's only a handful of converts per area or city, that's still pretty impressive for a new religion.

I haven't really read up on population figures yet, but maybe Rodney Stark and others like him would be helpful.

Up until Nicea, there were admittedly some heretical groups (Ebionites, Gnostics, Montanists, Marcionites, and the later Arianists), but it was hardly so disjointed until you supposedly think Constantine made the decision to reject all other "countless" forms of Christianity. It isn't wise to stick to the Bauer hypothesis. One of many scholars who oppose such an idea, Arland J. Hultgren says this:


But there are some commonalties, and the beginnings of a normative tradition in the pre-70 era can be discerned. All three areas investigated [the churches of Palestine, the Q community, and the churches of Paul], for example, continue the Jewish heritage of belief in the God of Israel as Creator, the Father of Jesus, and the Father of humanity. All affirm the essential humanity of Jesus, on the one hand, and his role in redemption made possible by his crucifixion and exaltation/resurrection by God. All understand that a new era has been inaugurated in consequence of the cross and resurrection, attested by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. And in each case the believers constitute communities of faith that are marked by an ethos in which the individual gives himself or herself over to others in love and service, which is inspired by and modeled on Jesus' own giving himself over...Although these matters may seem, because of their familiarity, theological and ethical commonplaces, they ought rather to be considered remarkable achievements of communities of faith and life in their infancy. The are marks of a normative tradition that resonates elsewhere in the writings of the New Testament and other early Christian literature.

The Rise of Normative Christianity, Arland J. Hultgren, Fortress: 1994.

For more on your faulty idea of Christianity, see here (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil1720.html).


Sorry, don’t give a crap about what Holding or unnamed ‘scholars’ say. What did the PEOPLE say? Got any actual TEXTUAL evidence from a FIRST CENTURY Christian convert saying that HE found the idea of crucified savior god incredibly OFFENSIVE, but he just HAD to believe, because HE SAW Jesus die on the cross, then HE saw him the next week, trampin’ on the road to Galilee and then FLY up into the sky?

No. You’ve got NOTHING. No evidence at all. Just ‘scholarly’ SPECULATION, special pleading and conjecture. Your argument isn’t based on ANY evidence. NONE. ZIP. NADA.

When you get some REAL textual evidence to support it, let me know. In the meantime, superstitious, gullible people believe ridiculous things that other people tell them. ESPECIALLY if there is an incredible BENEFIT to believing them, like the promise of a pleasant ETERNAL life. That is well DOCUMENTED. Islamic morons blow themselves up EVERYDAY because they believe it.

Unnamed? They're named at the site. That's what you find out when you bothered to read.

If you don't give a crap, then how are we supposed to have a serious discussion. You don't seem to care what any scholars who have had much more training and education have to say, so how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? Why don't you bother refuting what these scholars, who know much more about ancient psychology and social values than you, have to say? Plus, as the vast majority of the ancient world was illiterate, it's rather nonsensical for you to make such demands. You might as well demand that an average Joe give in-depth commentary about what he knows about quantum physics and if you don't find such a thing, quantum physics is bunk.

You're one to talk about no evidence. You've presented no evidence whatsoever, whereas the scholars have what sufficiently qualifies as evidence, not the ridiculous kind you're suggesting. I'd love to see you debate such a scholar on the ideas or at least provide contradicting evidence.

Your entire line of argumentation about a simple archetypal benefit while ignoring all the negative factors is completely nonsensical. Why should I bother if you're just going to ignore what's being said? Islam grew up in a similar society as Christianity, but it is nowhere near a parallel to Christianity. That ground has already been covered here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose3.html).

When (or more likely if) you can actually argue the issue at hand and refute what the scholars have said, I'll be listening.


Listen to whom? You haven’t cited ANY authority, and since NO ONE is an authority on what EVERYONE in the first century might have found offensive, your fallacious appeal to an unnamed authority is just another example of your incredibly LAME fallacious argument.

You really don’t have ANYTHING…do you?

My sources are the same as those Holding cites. Unnarmed authority? Tell that to Bruce Malina, Jerome Neyrey, Richard Rohrbaugh, David DeSilva, N.T. Wright, and the others.

As far as I can tell, you don't have anything at all but venom, poor points, and terrible analogies. At the very least, I actually know what the topic is.


Again, it’s up to YOU to establish why someone needs to be on the ‘fringe’ of society to not find joining some messianic/apocalyptic cult offensive. The fringe of WHAT society? You think inner city Rome, and rural Syria, and northern Egypt were all one big ‘society’? Do you think all these cult members were all believing the SAME things about these various messianic cults they patronized? You think someone in 200AD in Egypt had any access to ANYONE who had witnessed any ALLEGED resurrection of an earthly Jesus of Nazareth? No. Because you’re a simpleton. You have NO CLUE what you are talking about, you are simply MAKING up just so stories, and desperately trying to oversimplify a complex, multidimensional cultural phenomenon, to try and fit your INANE a-priori conclusion.

Sorry…not falling for it.

By fringe of society, I mean those who have been considered deviants already and thus may or may not have a skewed vision of honor and shame. All the locations you cited, according to the scholars, had the same basic social values.

So now someone simply has to witness something in order for them to believe it's true? You've been to every corner of the universe and actually seen that there is no God? Then by your own logic, you shouldn't be so certain. But those in the later days of Christianity had to rely on what evidence was left to them. They had eyewitness testimony, but no access to the eyewitnesses.

Oversimplification? You're the one that has simply made this a matter of "Well, these people believed crazy things, so Christianity is no different," when in fact, Christianity had factors against it that no one else had.


I’ve already explained why people join religious cults. Sorry you don’t like the answer. It would be up to YOU to demonstrate why the exact same people who would join a cult and worship a god who castrated himself, wouldn’t join the cult of a crucified savior god. Sorry…YOU CAN’T.

Deal with the scholars. I'm just a guy who agrees with their conclusions. You've made a terribly oversimplified explanation completely ignoring the factors involved which not of the cults you've mentioned have had. You're still running with the idea that castration was just as offensive as crucifixion. Yes, castration was offensive. It was associated with sexual perversion and decadence by the Romans (A. T. Fear, "Cybele and Christ." in Cybele, Attis and Related Cults). But crucifxion was a systematic status degradation ritual. It included:


Originally posted by JP Holding (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one)

The symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement. The process was so offensive that the Gospels turn out to be our most detailed description of a crucifixion from ancient times - the pagan authors were too revolted by the subject to give equally comprehensive descriptions - in spite of the fact that thousands of crucifixions were done at a time on some occasions. "(T)he cultured literary world wanted to have nothing to do with [crucifixion], and as a rule kept silent about it" (Quote at the end is from Martin Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 38).

(Note: Justin Martyr, in his first Apology 13:4 said:


They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God...)

Clearly, this was much more degrading than simple castration and thus much more offensive. Also, if you want the analogy to really hold water, demonstrate how the Attis cult grew and flourished like Christianity.

(Note: Once again, you have only tried to deal with one factor. Even if it really held water, there's plenty of other factors to go. Get to it.)


How about ANY authentic, contemporary correspondence where some claims to have WITNESSED the risen Jesus, in the FLESH, not in a VISION, and that provides the same kinds of DETAILS about an earthly Jesus passion story and biography as found in the anonymous, late first century gospels?

There are none. You have NO evidence. You have NO one saying they witnessed any EARTHLY resurrection. You have Paul who claims he saw Jesus in a ‘vision’, and that every other disciple had a ‘vision’. Big whoop. Lying cult leaders and there ‘visions’.
Can you say Reverend Moon? Yeah…that kind of crap fools lots of gullible people. And viola!...next thing you know there are a million Moonies runnin’ around in the span of 20 years.

This is simple out-of-hand rejection of the Gospels as authentic witnesses with no real basis on which to do so. As there was nothing else in the canon that even tried to set out to be a biography like the Gospels, you might as well ask if the IRS has any written record of the Civil War. I might as well say prove to me that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon without using the sources we have right now.

But still, there are these cites from Paul, I suggest you go look them up if you actually want to argue this.

Romans 1:3, Romans 4:24, Romans 9:3-5, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Galatians 1:19, Galatians 3:13, Galatians 3:16, Galatians 4:4, Colossians 1:21-22, 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, 1 Timothy 6:13.

As for your screed about an earthly resurrection (which I'm assuming you mean physical), there was no other conception by the Jews (cf. Daniel 12:2-3, Ezekiel 37:1-12, Isaiah 26:19, 4 Ezra 7:32, 1 Enoch 51:1, Sibylline Oracles IV:234-236 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib06.htm), 2 Baruch 50:2. Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4). Plus the Scriptural evidence cannot logically be bended that way to make it mean a spiritual resurrection. For one, anastasis, a word used to refer to physical resurrection is used by Paul to refer to Jesus in Romans 1:4, Romans 6:5, 1 Corinthians 15, and Philippians 3:10. If you don't believe me, consult one of the Biblical languages specialists on this site. For more on this issue of resurrection, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/physrez.html).

Yet another bad analogy. Tell me how Moon is anyway relevantly analogous to Christianity.


How big was it when? Where?

We don’t KNOW. Just like YOU don’t KNOW how big any Christian cult was in any place or any point of time.

So please, don’t PRETEND you have ANY kind of accurate census figures that detail religious affiliation in the Roman Empire from 100-350 AD. You DON’T. And if you PRETEND you do, you are just MAKING up more crap to support your fallacious A-PRIORI conclusion.

At its zenith. Location doesn't really matter.

But as far as I can tell, the Attis cult wasn't really all that successful. I could be wrong and please correct me if I am, but from what I can tell, that is the case.

Anyway, according to Acts, Christianity had over 3,000 members within about two months of the death of Christ (and of course many more in the years to come). There is no indication from what I can tell that the Attis cult had similar success. But once again, correct me if I'm wrong.

As I said, I don't pretend to know exact census figures, but it was obviously a somewhat significant body as it had converts all across the map in groups of varying sizes.


Please, I’m not your friend. You haven’t MADE any argument. You haven’t SHOWN any evidence that people would find a crucified savior god any more offensive than a self castrated one. You haven’t SHOWN that Christianity was any more successful than any other mystery or savior cult from that time period.

The REASON there are no Churches of Mithras or Attis or Osiris or Jupiter…is because one Christianity was made the OFFICIAL religion of the empire, it proceeded to PERSECUTE every other religion until they were all out of business.

You are a Christian, because a murderous, pagan, Roman emperor and his superstitious mommy took a liking to a certain messianic savior cult that served his political purposes.

If he had chosen to franchise the cult of Attis, you’d be an apologist for that religion.

Why do YOU believe Christianity? Why do you not find it OFFENSIVE? You have obviously no compelling evidence that supports the alleged resurrection of any earthly Jesus or the even more hilarious story of him ‘flying’ in his physical human body up into the clouds and off to ‘heaven’.

Yet you believe IT.

Obviously you're not my friend. Nor am I a the various things you've called me, but that doesn't stop you does it?

The entire OP was an argument. If you bothered to read it, you would know that. Whether or not you think it is convincing, it is an argument nonetheless. I linked to the article this was based on that gave such evidence. Do you need to learn to read?

Of course Christianity was more successful. It had factors against it that no one else had and it survived and did better than what you call mystery cults. The fact that there's even a religion called Christianity today shows it was more successful.

Revisionist history huh? You still fail to explain how Christianity survived to this imaginary point let alone when they actually persecuted these cults.

No, that's not why I'm a Christian.

What makes you think I'd join the Attis cult? You know almost nothing about me accept what you have read on this site. You are sickeningly presumptuous. If Christianity never succeeded, I have no idea what I'd be adhering to because I don't know all the variables that would have occurred if Christianity didn't succeed.

I believe Christianity various factors, not the least of which is the evidence of the Resurrection. I have the evidence of the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles, and the ripples of history to back this up. If you want to ignore that, that's your affair, but don't expect to be taken seriously.


There’s no evidence in your OP. There’s not a single quote from a single Christian convert claiming that he found a crucified savior god incredibly offensive, but still joined because he had FIRST HAND knowledge of the ACTUAL physical resurrection of one Jesus of Nazareth.

So all the rest of your blather is just baseless speculation, special pleading, conjecture and your own invented ‘just-so’ stories all designed to support you’re a-priori conclusion that people wouldn’t join some messianic/apocalyptic cult because the savior god was such a loser. Sorry…when you have some evidence, let me know.

That's ridiculous to demand because most people back then were illiterate. Besides, what need was there to write this? To satisfy brats like you in the 21st century who supposedly wouldn't believe this unless you had evidence like this from them?

Once again, as the scholars in the essay confirm, this was a known stigma that's not easily overcome. However, once again you only deal with crucifixion. The argument does not stand or fall on that point alone. There's plenty of other points to deal with.

You're becoming less and less of someone actually worth debating because you are neither thought-provoking or fun to play with. Come back when you have substance and are actually willing to read, not just when you feel the urge to insult a Christian.

[LGM]

I'm saying that this promise of eternal life wasn't something working against them. Will you always have such a problem with comprehension?


So in other words, if someone promised someone a pleasant eternal life in exchange for believing some unseen savior god was crucified to grant it to them, then there would likely be people who would go along with that.

Thanks for proving my point.

The attraction of eternal life is still the most powerful carrot that gets people to believe any goofy thing imaginable.

It works on you, and it works on some Gentile hicks in ancient Syria. No difference really.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

So in other words, if someone promised someone a pleasant eternal life in exchange for believing some unseen savior god was crucified to grant it to them, then there would likely be people who would go along with that.

Nope. I'm just saying it wasn't a stigma they had to overcome. There was no stigma against belief in an eternal pleasant afterlife. But you're going to need a lot more than that.


Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks for proving you have terrible comprehension.


The attraction of eternal life is still the most powerful carrot that gets people to believe any goofy thing imaginable.

Still not talking about what you think are "goofy" things. For the last time, we're talking about thinks that are socially offensive. Attraction of the idea of eternal life, which can be found in pretty much any religion, wouldn't be powerful enough to overcome so many offensive factors. Your attempted explanation is simply oversimplification. It doesn't explain how Christianity survived against all these factors, nor does it explain why so many came to this religion rather than go to one that wasn't offensive like the cults they already had. As it is, you have one positive that could be found anywhere going up against over a dozen stigmas. If you're actually interested in giving a sufficient explanation, you'll have to do better than simply saying, "Well, this religion offered eternal life."


It works on you, and it works on some Gentile hicks in ancient Syria. No difference really.

Wrong. Hilariously wrong. I don't believe because of the promise of eternal life. If that promise was all there was to it, I could just as simply go to any other religion that didn't call for such moral standards. I believe because from what I can tell, there's nowhere else to go that has as much truth as Christianity.

[Carpedm9587]

Wow, I have to admit I find most of this a lot less than satisfying. The number of assumptions made in the OP continues to defy comprehension, and it's amazing to me that this remains a serious topic of conversation when the fundamental assumption is so flawed: that the motivations of people can be reliably determined by examining their consequent actions. And we even lack verifiable, contemporary, detailed accounts of what those actions were. The "impossible faith" argument is built upon a tissue of misconception.

That it continues to convince is a testament to the writing skills of the author, not to the validity of the argument. It fails before it even begins.

Michel

[Chaotic Void]

Good to see you back. People've been wondering where you've been! :smile:


Wow, I have to admit I find most of this a lot less than satisfying. The number of assumptions made in the OP continues to defy comprehension, and it's amazing to me that this remains a serious topic of conversation when the fundamental assumption is so flawed: that the motivations of people can be reliably determined by examining their consequent actions. And we even lack verifiable, contemporary, detailed accounts of what those actions were. The "impossible faith" argument is built upon a tissue of misconception.

That it continues to convince is a testament to the writing skills of the author, not to the validity of the argument. It fails before it even begins.

Michel
Would you care to provide some of these alleged Assumptions?

[LGM]

Wow, I have to admit I find most of this a lot less than satisfying. The number of assumptions made in the OP continues to defy comprehension, and it's amazing to me that this remains a serious topic of conversation when the fundamental assumption is so flawed:

Well check the people who are taking it seriously and you'll have your answer.



That it continues to convince is a testament to the writing skills of the author, not to the validity of the argument. It fails before it even begins.


You don't really understand the whole JP Holding worship thing that the little apologist children have going here...do you?

[Chaotic Void]

Well check the people who are taking it seriously and you'll have your answer.

You don't really understand the whole JP Holding worship thing that the little apologist children have going here...do you?

You're just mad we're not admiring your poetry. :wink:

[LGM]

Nope. I'm just saying it wasn't a stigma they had to overcome. There was no stigma against belief in an eternal pleasant afterlife. But you're going to need a lot more than that.

Nope...I don't need ANYTHING more than that.

You're argument fails on that alone.

[LGM]

You're just mad we're not admiring your poetry. :wink:


Nah...I know you admire that too...

It's okay, if I was an 18 year old apologist wannabe, Holding would be my idol as well.

[historic salve]

You're just mad we're not admiring your poetry. :wink:
Come now, Chaotic Void, some people admire toilet paper. There's even a touch of artistry to it -- lots of toilet paper rolls have frilly flower designs.

[LGM]

TMI on your toilet paper preferences salve.

[Chaotic Void]

Nah...I know you admire that too...
It's mediocre at best. Compared to Shakespeare, it's absolute Drivel.


It's okay, if I was an 18 year old apologist wannabe, Holding would be my idol as well.
Wrong on Two occasions...
1)I'm 17
2)I don't "Idolize" Holding. "Respect" would be a better term to use.

[historic salve]

I'll let Pound speak for me:

One is tired of ornamentations, they are all a trick, and any sharp person can learn them.

Too bad LGM isn't a smart person.

[LGM]

It's mediocre at best. Compared to Shakespeare, it's absolute Drivel.

Please...have you read all of Shakespeare's Sonnets? Have you read all his works? I doubt a boy of your age would understand a tiny percentage of them. Be honest...have you?

The language and subject matter of his Sonnets is quite beyond your tender years and limited education.

That said, I never would compare myself to the greatest Bard whoever lived. Just like I'm sure you wouldn't compare yourself to Captain Chaos or Null and Void.

[LGM]

I'll let Pound speak for me:

One is tired of ornamentations, they are all a trick, and any sharp person can learn them.

Too bad LGM isn't a smart person.

I'm not sure who 'Pound' is, but the more you let other people speak for you, the better.

[historic salve]

I'm not sure who 'Pound' is, but the more you let other people speak for you, the better.
:lmbo: I'm talking about Ezra Pound, you dummy, the father of imagism. No wonder your poetry sucks. You don't know your betters.

[LGM]

:lmbo: I'm talking about Ezra Pound, you dummy, the father of imagism. No wonder your poetry sucks. You don't know your betters.

Can we see a sample of your poetry little one?


No...I didn't think so.

[historic salve]

Can we see a sample of your poetry little one?

No...I didn't think so.
I don't show my poetry to strange little girls on the Internet. By the way, when are you going to write your next poem about cutting yourself because your boyfriend left you?

[Chaotic Void]

Please...have you read all of Shakespeare's Sonnets? Have you read all his works? I doubt a boy of your age would understand a tiny percentage of them. Be honest...have you?

I've read Hamlet [ahead of the class by the by :hehe:], Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Nights Dream, Macbeth, and various sonnets. I've also skimmed "The Rape of Lucrese" but that was a while ago.
By the by, his complete works is in my "List of books to Buy". Actually, since I'm not getting a laptop for Grad, I'm thinking of asking for that book instead... :wink:


The language and subject matter of his Sonnets is quite beyond your tender years and limited education.
Not necessarily. Actually, my teacher was quite amazed that I was able to figure out what the first 15 lines of Hamlet were about in 30 seconds [I wasn't keeping track, but we were given about two minutes and I was farting around for over a minute and 15 seconds].


That said, I never would compare myself to the greatest Bard whoever lived. Just like I'm sure you wouldn't compare yourself to Captain Chaos or Null and Void.
I don't even know who those guys are, so comparison would be impossible.

[LGM]

I don't show my poetry to strange little girls on the Internet. By the way, when are you going to write your next poem about cutting yourself because your boyfriend left you?

Please, you don't have the creative talent to write a poorly metered limerick. But I do understand your petty jealousy and frustration of my abundant god given bardly gifts, and the accolades that people here shower upon me, as opposed to you. I hope some day with sufficient therapy you can learn to overcome this rage and jealousy, and perhaps even learn to write some simple poems of your own. If you'd like, I could mentor you.

[LGM]

I've read Hamlet [ahead of the class by the by :hehe:], Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Nights Dream, Macbeth, and various sonnets. I've also skimmed "The Rape of Lucrese" but that was a while ago.
By the by, his complete works is in my "List of books to Buy". Actually, since I'm not getting a laptop for Grad, I'm thinking of asking for that book instead... :wink:

An EXCELLENT start, and a worthwhile goal. I have the original edition of the Riverside Shakespeare from my college days, it is excellent, and I assume it has been updated by now.

All of Shakespeare's Sonnets, including notes, are available for free online here:

http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/

I have 'borrowed' from them liberally from time to time to craft my own sonnets.



Not necessarily. Actually, my teacher was quite amazed that I was able to figure out what the first 15 lines of Hamlet were about in 30 seconds [I wasn't keeping track, but we were given about two minutes and I was farting around for over a minute and 15 seconds].

I too can sense that you are well on your way to becoming an impressive literary scholar young Void. You are far ahead of where I was at your age.

Good luck with your graduation and your college studies.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

Nope...I don't need ANYTHING more than that.

You're argument fails on that alone.

Hardly. It doesn't explain why Christianity had the converts it did and why it survived to the fourth century, when the official persecutions of Rome stopped. If people simply want the promise of eternal life, they can go anywhere. Why join another religion that offers eternal life when it has so many offensive factors? They could just as easily have joined another religion that wasn't offensive and didn't cause you to go through all of that persecution. Unless there were a lot of extreme masochists and Christianity somehow got hold of so many of them, it doesn't make any sense.

[LGM]

Hardly. It doesn't explain why Christianity had the converts it did and why it survived to the fourth century, when the official persecutions of Rome stopped.

Sure it does.

Christians weren't being persecuted all over the Roman empire for centuries.

Paulianity had converts for the same reason the Essenses and Gnostics and Marcionites and Attis worshipers and Mithraism and traditional Roman religions and all the various pagan cults had converts. People shopping for something new in a culturaly mixed empire.



If people simply want the promise of eternal life, they can go anywhere.

And they did.



Why join another religion that offers eternal life when it has so many offensive factors?

You have no ability at all to judge what someone deciding to convert to Christianity in some ancient Syrian or Egyptian backwater would find offensive about it compared to their other religious choices...NONE. You have no evidence, only an a-priori FALSE premise.

Sorry. You can keep repeating the same false claims, but your WORD, doesn't really provide any EVIDENCE for what people converting to the VARIOUS different ancient Christian cults, of which their is incredibly SCANT textual evidence thougt or found offensive.

And the hilarious premise that far flung people in the Roman Empire, a century removed from the alleged resurrection of Jesus, had ANY kind of certainy to these claims is ludicrous.

Even Paul didn't have any first hand knowledge of Jesus alleged resurrection.

BTW, you probably shouldn't pretend to know what Christians in the year 189 found fashionable.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

Sure it does.

Christians weren't being persecuted all over the Roman empire for centuries.

Nope, still fails. If by "persecution" you mean executing people, then I would agree with you (though there were undoubtedly a few pockets of it here and there). However, by persecution I mean something more general. As Robin Lane Fox wrote,


By reducing the history of Christian persecution to a history of legal hearings, we miss a large part of the victimization.

Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians: In the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD.

Persecution took place on a lower level. By believing such offensive things, the Christians would find themselves ostracized, something much worse in a collectivist society than in ours. People part of a group like Christianity would find themselves subject to things like insults, reproach, physical abuse, whippings, confiscation of property, and disgrace. Given the nature of Christianity as an offensive group of deviants, it would be pretty safe to say that such persecution would take place at a fairly constant rate from various folks.


Paulianity had converts for the same reason the Essenses and Gnostics and Marcionites and Attis worshipers and Mithraism and traditional Roman religions and all the various pagan cults had converts. People shopping for something new in a culturaly mixed empire.

Cute label. Still not answering the problem at hand. None of these religions were offensive like Christianity. Never mind that this whole shopping for something new thing doesn't float with what is known about that time (as is laid out under the factor on the site). But even if a non-substance Christianity (especially the kind conceived of by the Christ-myth thesis) got some converts at all, the question remains of how it survived so long under persecution precisely because of its offensive nature.


You have no ability at all to judge what someone deciding to convert to Christianity in some ancient Syrian or Egyptian backwater would find offensive about it compared to their other religious choices...NONE. You have no evidence, only an a-priori FALSE premise.

You're right. I don't, but the scholars mentioned in the original piece do. The arguments of Holding and myself are based on them. You have an issue, contact them and see how you do.


Sorry. You can keep repeating the same false claims, but your WORD, doesn't really provide any EVIDENCE for what people converting to the VARIOUS different ancient Christian cults, of which their is incredibly SCANT textual evidence thougt or found offensive.

If this is becoming kind of repetitive it's because you keep saying the same thing and I just keep posting the same response. Once again, get it through your thick skull that it's not on my word. It's based on the conclusions of scholars mentioned in the links. There weren't "various" different Christianities. I suggest you actually deal with the evidence. Those who you would cite as evidence were never really considered Christians. Take it up with the scholars, they're much more informed than either of us on these issues.


And the hilarious premise that far flung people in the Roman Empire, a century removed from the alleged resurrection of Jesus, had ANY kind of certainy to these claims is ludicrous.

The argument is mainly meant to address the first generation or so. Considering the factors, one has to wonder how Christianity even made it that far. But also, why is it ludicrous? So now you'll never believe that someone commits murder simply because you didn't witness the murder yourself?


Even Paul didn't have any first hand knowledge of Jesus alleged resurrection.

Nice sound-bite. This is of course dismisses the vision Paul had.


BTW, you probably shouldn't pretend to know what Christians in the year 189 found fashionable.

For the last time, it's not me. It's the scholars who've studied in this field. I don't pretend to know, but I trust them.

Well LGM, at this point you're simply repeating yourself over and over again without actually dealing with my points. If your next post is like this, I guess you're just going to have to go on Ignore (not that you care, just letting you know).

[LGM]

Nope, still fails.

It's your argument that fails. Because you have no evidence, just conjecture and speculation and an a-priori conclusion that you cling to but refuse to support with the least shred of source evidence.



If by "persecution" you mean executing people, then I would agree with you (though there were undoubtedly a few pockets of it here and there). However, by persecution I mean something more general. As Robin Lane Fox wrote,

Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians: In the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD.

Persecution took place on a lower level. By believing such offensive things, the Christians would find themselves ostracized, something much worse in a collectivist society than in ours. People part of a group like Christianity would find themselves subject to things like insults, reproach, physical abuse, whippings, confiscation of property, and disgrace. Given the nature of Christianity as an offensive group of deviants, it would be pretty safe to say that such persecution would take place at a fairly constant rate from various folks.

So what? Are you now moving the goal posts of your argument?

What does persecution have to do with your argument? Nothing. It's irrelevant. Try again.

What's next? The Christian meeting was too far away to walk to? Please...stop.

There are countless sects and religions that suffered far worse persecutions than the Christians, did before they came to power and began to persecute all other religions, and all other sects they considered heretical. Look what the Jews suffered for centuries at the hands of the Christians in Europe. Look at what the Puritans suffered at the hands of other Christians, they risked everything and moved to a new Continent , and the majority died.

Again, you're grasping at straws now.

You have no evidence that everyone would find another run-of-the-mill, second century messianic savior cult all that offensive. And you don't have any evidence for how many Christians there were at any given point in the first 3 centuries. Mystery cults were a dime a dozen in the empire at that time, and Christianity clearly shared ideas, customs and rituals with lots of other religions from the time, that were completely familiar to the people of that time.

Robin Lane Fox doesn't know the level of persecution or ostracizing some Gentile family might suffer in some tiny farming community in Syria, because they joined the cult of Christ instead of Attis or Mithras or Osiris or Jupiter. You still haven't presented one shred of source documentation from the era that proves this.

None.

Please don't quote Robin Lane Fox speculating on mild persecution, it does nothing to support your argument.




Cute label. Still not answering the problem at hand. None of these religions were offensive like Christianity.

That's simply your completely unsupported assertion.

All you're doing is assuming your a-priori conclusion. Your argument is simply circular. No one would join Christianity because you say so. Sorry...not seeing your authority to speak for everyone from a huge swath of diverse cultures around the ancient Mediterranean.

There's no reason for me to continue this conversation if you can't support it with any source evidence that clearly suppprts your flippant assertion.

I wonder... what would be more offensive to some young male peasant, joining a mystery cult where people are actually castrating themselves? Or joining one where some ancient man-god was crucified, risen from the dead, flew off into the sky, and forgives you for anything bad you've ever done and is going to give you a pleasant eternal life where you'll live forever like a King in paradise.

Please...it's not even close.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by LGM

It's your argument that fails. Because you have no evidence, just conjecture and speculation and an a-priori conclusion that you cling to but refuse to support with the least shred of source evidence.

Hardly. If you had actually shown that, I might agree with you, however, you made a few assertions and assumed that was enough to refute the argument.


So what? Are you now moving the goal posts of your argument?

What does persecution have to do with your argument? Nothing. It's irrelevant. Try again.

What's next? The Christian meeting was too far away to walk to? Please...stop.

There are countless sects and religions that suffered far worse persecutions than the Christians, did before they came to power and began to persecute all other religions, and all other sects they considered heretical. Look what the Jews suffered for centuries at the hands of the Christians in Europe. Look at what the Puritans suffered at the hands of other Christians, they risked everything and moved to a new Continent , and the majority died.

Again, you're grasping at straws now.

You have no evidence that everyone would find another run-of-the-mill, second century messianic savior cult all that offensive. And you don't have any evidence for how many Christians there were at any given point in the first 3 centuries. Mystery cults were a dime a dozen in the empire at that time, and Christianity clearly borrowed ideas, customs and rituals with lots of other religions from the time, that were completely familiar to the people of that time.

Robin Lane Fox doesn't know the level of persecution or ostracizing some Gentile family might suffer in some tiny farming community in Syria, because they joined the cult of Christ instead of Attis or Mithras or Osiris or Jupiter. You still haven't presented one shred of source documentation from the era that proves this.

None.

Please don't quote Robin Lane Fox speculating on mild persecution, it does nothing to support your argument.

If you bothered reading the OP past the first section, you'd know that persecution is an important factor. That's what happens when you actually read LGM.

Suffered far worse persecution? Hardly. Try offering evidence instead of just demanding it from others and refusing to give your own. Jews being persecuted by European Christians, though sad, is absolutely non-analogous to Christianity who suffered persecution in its infancy.

I've presented to you evidence that such things were found offensive (or rather, mostly I linked to where it could be found, as well as some quotes). Christianity was hardly run-of-the-mill, according to the relevant scholars presented in the article the OP was based on, it had many offensive ideas about it. Unless you want to fight the scholars and say it wasn't (and actually offer sufficient reason for that) or wish to say other were like Christianity despite having many offensive factors, it'll remain blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Well, if it's so clear, could you present some actual evidence of borrowing (rather than just saying, "here's a similarity, that proves there was borrowing")? If Christianity was going to conform to the ideas of these mystery cults, why didn't they just leave the offensive elements behind, which would have been the smart thing to do?

What makes Robin Lane Fox, an ancient historian, doesn't know what he's talking about? As for documentation of persecution:

Romans 8:35-36:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:

"For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."

2 Corinthians 1:5-11:

For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.

We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.

2 Corinthians 6:3-10:

We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

2 Corinthians 11:23-29 talks about Paul's specific sufferings (some of which are undoubtedly persecutions), not necessarily those of regular Christians:

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

Hebrews 10:32-34:

Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

There are other references to sufferings, but they are not as specific as these cites.

We also have the more popular persecution from Tacitus’ Annals 15.44:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

None? Sorry, you were wrong. That’s what happens when you are so presumptuous.

As you can see, Fox wasn’t speculating.


That's simply your completely unsupported assertion.

All you're doing is assuming your a-priori conclusion. Your argument is simply circular. No one would join Christianity because you say so. Sorry...not seeing your authority to speak for everyone from a huge swath of diverse cultures around the ancient Mediterranean.

There's no reason for me to continue this conversation if you can't support it with any source evidence that clearly suppprts your flippant assertion.

I wonder... what would be more offensive to some young male peasant, joining a mystery cult where people are actually castrating themselves? Or joining one where some ancient man-god was crucified, risen from the dead, flew off into the sky, and forgives you for anything bad you've ever done and is going to give you a pleasant eternal life where you'll live forever like a King in paradise.

Please...it's not even close.

Unsupported assertion? I’ve been spending this whole time supporting it.

Because I say so? Hardly. I actually have scholars on my side that talk about offensive ideals of Christianity. I’ve grown tired of telling you that.

I had no reason to continue this conversation from the time you first posted, but I did. You have done nothing but assert (yet you demand evidence from others) and ignored all evidence.

I’ve dealt with that notion already. Besides, what makes you think that the Attis cult did not provide a promise for such a life as well? You’re simply focusing on the positive and ignoring negatives that ancients just couldn’t.

You're right, it's not close. The deck is much more heavily stacked against Christianity. Because even without the crucifixion being so serious, there's still plenty of factors left, something you've failed to comprehend this entire time.

Well, guess that’s it for this one with you. You’ll be going on Ignore now.

[Bagger_Vance]

But the gospels were written soon after Jesus' death. There would not have been much time for the "myths" to surface because people were still alive that witnessed the events.

How did Mormonism or Islam survive then?

[LGM]

Hardly. If you had actually shown that, I might agree with you, however, you made a few assertions and assumed that was enough to refute the argument.

It's you who are asserting. Your argument is fallacious. It's been pointed out to you repeatedly. This is the last time I'll be doing it.



If you bothered reading the OP past the first section, you'd know that persecution is an important factor. That's what happens when you actually read LGM.

Sorry, there have been countless minority religions persecuted by majority religions in many different cultures throughout history. Does this make all the beliefs of all these religions true? Of course not, that's ludicrous. So this again is SPECIAL PLEADING.

And for 1000 years in Europe and then in the Americas, it was the Catholic church and then dominant Protestant Theocracies doing the persecution of other minority religions and the religions of the peoples they conquered and enslaved in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

So the claim that no one would join or stick with some religion because of some mild persecution is ridiculous. It happens all the time. Again you are special pleading.

It's also obvious that certain Christians RELISH persecution, they think it makes them more like Jesus. It's also obvious that Christians have lied and embellished persecution stories to make themselves appear more Christlike. So a certain amount of persecution actually attracts a certain kind of person.

Now, why would anyone in Spain stay a Jew and be forced to leave their homes, and all they had and knew, when instead they could simply convert to Christianity? Because they must have KNOWN Judaism was TRUE and Christianity was a false religion.

There's your counter argument in a nutshell. That proves Christianity false right there. The Jewish people who invented the Semite religion and gods to begin with, refused to convert to Christianity under threat of extreme persecution and death. They KNEW it was a false belief.

Muslims and Jews being killed and persecuted and driven off their lands in Spain, and refusing to convert?

Why?

Because they KNEW Christianity was a false religion.

Simple isn't it?



Suffered far worse persecution? Hardly. Try offering evidence instead of just demanding it from others and refusing to give your own.

Try reading the history of the Jewish revolt and war with the Romans. Try reading the history of the Spanish Inquistition.
Check the figures on the Holocaust.

Let me know if you have any questions.



Jews being persecuted by European Christians, though sad, is absolutely non-analogous to Christianity who suffered persecution in its infancy.

By who? Where? Seems like Christians were living in Rome, Jerusalem, Egypt, Syria and lots of places without a problem. So they suffered some persecution in isolated regions and times, so what? I'm sure many jump ship when they were persecuted. Just like many stop going to church now when they take up golf.

Again, nebulous claims of persecution prove nothing.


I've presented to you evidence that such things were found offensive (or rather, mostly I linked to where it could be found, as well as some quotes). Christianity was hardly run-of-the-mill, according to the relevant scholars presented in the article the OP was based on, it had many offensive ideas about it. Unless you want to fight the scholars and say it wasn't (and actually offer sufficient reason for that) or wish to say other were like Christianity despite having many offensive factors, it'll remain blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, no amount of 21st century Christian scholars and apologists you quote is going to change the fact that they don't SPEAK for ALL the ancient people in various different circumstances, and they don't KNOW any and all the REASONS they may have become followers of some messianic cult of Christ. Do they? Do they? Or do you REALLY think they do?

Your argument is based on nothing more than special pleading and unsupported speculation by people 1800 years removed from the events.

You haven't established that ANY ACTUAL ancient person in the second century would find any other mystery or pagan cult any LESS offensive than Christianity. And I have given a clear example of a cult that had a self castrated savior god, and initiates who DID THE SAME...actually castrated themselves!

Yet this is deemed 'less offensive' then saying Christ is Lord, having a ceremonial meal, and getting a pleasant eternal life for your efforts.

Please.

Your argument is this:

1. People joined Christianity in the third century even though it may have had a culturally offensive savior god and some Christians were also persecuted.
2. Therefore Jesus had to have been really, REALLY resurrected from the dead in 30 AD. Oh yeah...and this also proves he walked on water and healed blind people with spit and mud!

Please, this is laughable. It's not a deductive or an inductive argument. It's completely fallacious reasoning.

Here is the same fallacious argument again:

1. People joined Heaven's Gate Cult even though Marshall Applewhite's beliefs were offensive and his cult was persecuted. They even committed suicide for him.
2. Therefore, there really was a alien spaceship hiding behind the Hale Bopp comet waiting to take them all to heaven.

Sorry, your argument is fallacious. People joined messianic cults in greater Syria, Egypt and Greece in 190 AD and 290 AD. Big whoop. It proves nothing about the claims of any of the cults.

Your argument fails to convince because it is fallacious.

[Chaotic Void]

An EXCELLENT start, and a worthwhile goal. I have the original edition of the Riverside Shakespeare from my college days, it is excellent, and I assume it has been updated by now.

Indeed. I'll have to get one with side notes about Cultural references, or do you think I might have to get a separate text for that? [One can't really read and truly understand old texts like Shakespeare without some knowledge of the Culture of the Time]



All of Shakespeare's Sonnets, including notes, are available for free online here:

http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/

I have 'borrowed' from them liberally from time to time to craft my own sonnets.

Thanks for the link. I'll have to put that in my "Favorites" section for when I've got time to read something.



I too can sense that you are well on your way to becoming an impressive literary scholar young Void. You are far ahead of where I was at your age.

Thanks, LGM. :thumb:


Good luck with your graduation and your college studies.
I'm leaning towards SchoolTeacher, so I can smack some much-needed sense into some of tomorrow's generations.

[Zeluvia]

It was a pathetic tragedy to learn the details of how William Amis trudged from Lyon, France to Annweiler, Germany, all of his property being confiscated, driven out of his home with his wife and and 5 children, allowing them nothing but except their light clothes they wore in the Fall and arriving with the other Hugenots in Annweiler penniless and footsore and hungered for their faith as Calvinists.
To endure all these privitations for their faith is sublime.

*from an old family letter

I always thought Calvinism was mostly true = )

[Carpedm9587]

Nope, still fails. If by "persecution" you mean executing people, then I would agree with you (though there were undoubtedly a few pockets of it here and there). However, by persecution I mean something more general.

This is a classic case of the assumptions I was referring to. Some people avoid persecution. Some people thrive on it. It makes them feel special - worthy. And when the message is one about the hope of eternity, the example pointed to is a god-man that was persecuted, what on earth makes you think persecution must necessarily drive people away?

The "impossible faith" is based on the concatenation of a collection of individual assumptions about human behavior, none of which can be established to be true. It rests on the assumption "reasonable people wouldn't do that" and assumes we can know what was going on in the minds of those people - and what they would have seen as reasonable or unreasonable.

It's not an impossible faith. We can't even show it to be an unlikely faith. The issues are not unexplainable. But any explanation offered can (and typically is) dismissed by anyone predisposed to accept the beliefs - which is what I see happening here.

What we know is it DID succeed (depending on what you mean by success). We can speculate as to why. But there is no way to make the leap "it had to be true or it wouldn't have succeeded." You can't even get to "that it was true is the best explanation for why it succeeded." You can only assume those positions.

And typically this is done by piling on more assumptions, like:

- The written records we have are accurate and objective
- The written records we have are contemporary
- God exists and preserves the message (talk about begging the question)
- People only act in a reasonable fashion
- A large group of people will tend to act reasonably
- People avoid persecution
- People investigate closely before they accept a belief
- Witnesses can't be wrong
- We have eyewitness reports

...and the list goes on.

Michel

[John Powell]

Pseudo Carp:
This is a classic case of the assumptions I was referring to. Some people avoid persecution. Some people thrive on it. It makes them feel special - worthy. And when the message is one about the hope of truth, the example pointed to is that of a revolution of scientific thought, what on earth makes you think that persecution must necessarily drive people away?

The "impossible faith" is based on the concatenation of a collection of individual assumptions about human behavior, none of which can be established to be true. It rests on the assumption "reasonable people wouldn't do that" and assumes we can know what was going on in the minds of those scientists - and what they would have seen as reasonable or unreasonable.

It's not an impossible faith that modern science is true and classical science is wrong. We can't even show it to be an unlikely faith. The issues are not unexplainable. But any explanation offered can (and typically is) dismissed by anyone predisposed to accept the beliefs - which is what I see happening here.

What we know is it DID succeed (depending on what you mean by success). We can speculate as to why. But there is no way to make the leap "Modern science had to be true or it wouldn't have succeeded." You can't even get to "Modern science was true is the best explanation for why it succeeded." You can only assume those positions.

And typically this is done by piling on more assumptions, like:

- The published scientific papers we have are accurate and objective
- The scientific papers we have are contemporary
- Modern science is true (talk about begging the question).
- Scientists only act in a reasonable fashion
- A large group of scientists will tend to act reasonably
- Scientists avoid persecution
- Scientists investigate closely before they accept a belief
- Scientists can't be wrong
- We have eyewitness reports

...and the list goes on.

POWELL:
So, what would be wrong for a nonscientist to conclude that modern science is correct and classical science was wrong because it's unlikely that scientists would have "converted" to the new view against the well established laws of classical science unless the new view were true?

John Powell

[LGM]

The Impossible Metric System
- by LGM

Back in the 1790s, France came up with a crazy new measuring religion based on what they called the 'meter', which is supposed to be one tenth-millionth the length of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator when measured on a straight line running along the surface of the earth through Paris.

Meanwhile England, their dreaded enemy, had already the well established measurement system based on practical measurements like the foot and the yard from earlier Roman times.

The first time France tried this new 'metric' system, they were persecuted for it by their own people and had to abandon it.

But it persisted, and grew, and in the span of just the last hundred years or so, practically all industrialized nations have converted to this incredibly offensive French system. Imagine how incredibly offensive it is for an English or German engineer or worker using a measurement based on some stupid line running thru Paris, the prissyboy capital of the world. People WOULD never adopt it, it would be just TOO offensive.

But they did.

This PROVES that the metric system is Really True.

:bravo:

[Chaotic Void]

The Impossible Metric System
- by LGM

Back in the 1790s, France came up with a crazy new measuring religion based on what they called the 'meter', which is supposed to be one tenth-millionth the length of the distance from the North Pole to the Equator when measured on a straight line running along the surface of the earth through Paris.

Meanwhile England, their dreaded enemy, had already the well established measurement system based on practical measurements like the foot and the yard from earlier Roman times.

The first time France tried this new 'metric' system, they were persecuted for it by their own people and had to abandon it.

But it persisted, and grew, and in the span of just the last hundred years or so, practically all industrialized nations have converted to this incredibly offensive French system. Imagine how incredibly offensive it is for an English or German engineer or worker using a measurement based on some stupid line running thru Paris, the prissyboy capital of the world. People WOULD never adopt it, it would be just TOO offensive.

But they did.

This PROVES that the metric system is Really True.

:bravo:

:sigh: Give LGM a Centimeter and he'll take a Kilometer...

[element771]

How did Mormonism or Islam survive then?

How is this relevant to their being people who witnessed Jesus' activity being still alive when the gospels were written?

The Koran and the Book of Mormon were revealed to Muhammad and J Smith through divine revelation. The NT is a collection of witnessed account of Jesus' teachings, claims, and activities. The purpose of the NT is to be a historical account of Jesus' life.

If the Bible were written directly by Jesus....I would agree with you.

[LGM]

How is this relevant to their being people who witnessed Jesus' activity being still alive when the gospels were written?

Please, there is no convincing evidence for this whatsoever.

The gospels are anonymous and the authors never claim to be eyewitnesses to the narrative, or that they even have sources who were.



The Koran and the Book of Mormon were revealed to Muhammad and J Smith through divine revelation. The NT is a collection of witnessed account of Jesus' teachings, claims, and activities.

Again, feel free to quote any passage in a gospel where the author claims to be there witnessing the alleged events. You can't.

More than half the NT are letters that don't contain ANY biographical details of Jesus or ANY of Jesus alleged teachings. And all the later gospels seem to depend on one early one written by someone who is now called 'mark', who even church tradition doesn't pretend was an eyewitness.

Historical criticism has long ago abandoned any pretense that the gospels are 'history'. They are politely categorized as theological literature, and more often as simple mythology.




The purpose of the NT is to be a historical account of Jesus' life.

Please, there was no 'purpose' to the NT, because the NT was never a planned collection of literature. The primary purpose of all of Paul's epistles is to try and keep his fledging messianic mystery religion going and continue to establish HIS authority and HIS gospel versus his competitors. Feel free to quote any epistle detailing the historical details of Jesus life.

[saladfingers]

This is a classic case of the assumptions I was referring to. Some people avoid persecution. Some people thrive on it. It makes them feel special - worthy. And when the message is one about the hope of eternity, the example pointed to is a god-man that was persecuted, what on earth makes you think persecution must necessarily drive people away?

The "impossible faith" is based on the concatenation of a collection of individual assumptions about human behavior, none of which can be established to be true. It rests on the assumption "reasonable people wouldn't do that" and assumes we can know what was going on in the minds of those people - and what they would have seen as reasonable or unreasonable.

It's not an impossible faith. We can't even show it to be an unlikely faith. The issues are not unexplainable. But any explanation offered can (and typically is) dismissed by anyone predisposed to accept the beliefs - which is what I see happening here.

What we know is it DID succeed (depending on what you mean by success). We can speculate as to why. But there is no way to make the leap "it had to be true or it wouldn't have succeeded." You can't even get to "that it was true is the best explanation for why it succeeded." You can only assume those positions.

And typically this is done by piling on more assumptions, like:

- The written records we have are accurate and objective
- The written records we have are contemporary
- God exists and preserves the message (talk about begging the question)
- People only act in a reasonable fashion
- A large group of people will tend to act reasonably
- People avoid persecution
- People investigate closely before they accept a belief
- Witnesses can't be wrong
- We have eyewitness reports

...and the list goes on.

Michel

This argument gets very complicated. Like I have said before, the TIF argument is based on the "retro-prediction" of the reaction of ancient people to an unprecedented event.

It assumes that since we know X about people group Y, then they will do C when unprecedented event Z takes place.

JP has done a great job at compiling data about the ancient world, as well as the honor/shame sentiment that was prevelant among these people. But I think there's something that he's overlooking...in fact, has no way of looking at:

It's like when scientists map out the genetic code only to find that it didn't answer all the questions. ..

...until they start exploring the "epi-genetic" code. Little sequences of molecules that can deactivate or "silence" parts of the DNA, yet the DNA pattern itself doesn't change. There are genetic outcomes that cannot be predicted by analyzing the DNA patterns alone. It is the epi-gentic tags that can significantly alter things.

JP has, in effect, "mapped out" the ancient world. But there is crucial information that no one has access to that would go a long long way in proving this TIF hypothesis...namely, the complex inner working of the minds of people who existed 2000 years ago.

How does one refute TIF? It is impossble to refute the Impossible Faith! Propoents often ask for counter-cultural groups in the ANE that may have been prone to such a cult. Then they go on to say that society was so polarized into honor/shame thinking, that no group existed.

But groups divide into groups only after something happens that divides them into groups. The ressurrection had not taken place yet, so there is no way to identify groups that would have gone one way or the other. I agree that that the honor/shame mindset had much more influence on the way people behaved back then than in our modern world. But there is absolutely no way to retro-predict the mass perception of this new and complex theology that emerged back then.

We might have the "DNA" code of the ancient world, but there are "epi-genetic" tags yet to be explored.
I do think that JPshould start a school though : the JP Holding school of ancient psychology. :tongue:

[element771]

Please, there was no 'purpose' to the NT, because the NT was never a planned collection of literature. The primary purpose of all of Paul's epistles is to try and keep his fledging messianic mystery religion going and continue to establish HIS authority and HIS gospel versus his competitors. Feel free to quote any epistle detailing the historical details of Jesus life.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Sounds like Luke is trying to be historically accurate to me. He also seems to be telling the reader his purpose for writing his gospel.

[LGM]

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Sounds like Luke is trying to be historically accurate to me. He also seems to be telling the reader his purpose for writing his gospel.


Seems like he's admitting he's not an eyewitness to anything, seems like he doesn't tell us anything about the sources of his alleged investigations anywhere in the text, and finally it seems like he has a paying patron with an agenda, who perhaps had some doubts about the farfetched stuff he had been told about this religion, and who he's selling this account to.

Doesn't seem like taking an earlier anonymous gospel he had, and embellishing it to suit his or his patron's agenda, is much of an 'investigation'.

[element771]

seems like he doesn't tell us anything about the sources of his alleged investigations anywhere in the text

His sources are " the first were eyewitnesses" and his investigations into the veracity of the events.



, and finally it seems like he has a paying patron with an agenda, who perhaps had some doubts about the farfetched stuff he had been told about this religion

I agree....he feels it is worthy of investigation. From this investigation he concludes that it is legit.


Doesn't seem like taking an earlier anonymous gospel he had, and embellishing it to suit his or his patron's agenda, is much of an 'investigation'.

You must have a different verse than I have....where does it say this?

Seems to me that he is writing an "orderly account for you" of the "things that have been fulfilled" because he "carefully investigated everything from the beginning".

To conclude that all he did was copy an anonymous gospel is pure speculation.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Bagger_Vance

How did Mormonism or Islam survive then?

What about them? Mormonism grew up in an entirely different social setting and didn't even have parallels to the factors (except for some persecution). Islam on the other hand did grow up in a similar social setting. However, it did not have the factors working against it that Christianity did. For the original author's responses to these questions, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose2.html) and here (http://www.tektonics.org/uz/yeswayjose3.html).


Originally posted by Carpedm9587

This is a classic case of the assumptions I was referring to. Some people avoid persecution. Some people thrive on it. It makes them feel special - worthy. And when the message is one about the hope of eternity, the example pointed to is a god-man that was persecuted, what on earth makes you think persecution must necessarily drive people away?

If there was no real reason to believe, just a simple promise of a pleasant afterlife that you could find anywhere, why should the Christians have stuck with this belief system instead of going to another that could have offered them this and not have all the offensive things attached to it? In a society where honor was the most important thing, going through such dishonor for something one knew was not true does not agree with what we know of ancient society as a whole. This was a society that was group-oriented. Being so cut off from your the family group, the national group, and the universal group for something which has nothing behind it (but simlpy an offensive myth) isn't exactly something a collectivist likes the idea of. Such devices as have been mentioned were measures by which the deviant was shamed back into compliance with society. Whether or not it would drive all away, it would definitely drive most away. Going through so much simply for something that they could get with another religion makes absolutely no sense.


The "impossible faith" is based on the concatenation of a collection of individual assumptions about human behavior, none of which can be established to be true. It rests on the assumption "reasonable people wouldn't do that" and assumes we can know what was going on in the minds of those people - and what they would have seen as reasonable or unreasonable.

You can't esatblish them? Explain that to the scholars. Tell them how and why they're wasting their time.


It's not an impossible faith. We can't even show it to be an unlikely faith. The issues are not unexplainable. But any explanation offered can (and typically is) dismissed by anyone predisposed to accept the beliefs - which is what I see happening here.

Of course they are not unexplainable. What is being said is that they aren't explainable from the perspective that the Resurrection didn't take place. More specifically in the OP, that they aren't explainable under the paradigm of the Christ-myth.

You think so huh? You think I don't critically weigh matters? Why? Just because I'm a Christian? For your information, I would be willing to leave Christianity if it is proven wrong. If the data I find doesn't agree with my presupposition, it's time to change the presupposition or at the very least, leave the issue in the air for a while. Could it actually be that none of the explanations offered have been sufficient? Is that so impossible to think? If you have a good explanation, feel free to offer it. But if it's weighed, measured, and found wanting, don't expect me to give it credence.


What we know is it DID succeed (depending on what you mean by success). We can speculate as to why. But there is no way to make the leap "it had to be true or it wouldn't have succeeded." You can't even get to "that it was true is the best explanation for why it succeeded." You can only assume those positions.

By success, I basically mean that Christianity was able to not only survive for a very unexpected amount of time, but was also able to spread far and wide.

There's no leap, just small steps backed up by another factor. If it's wrong that Christianity wouldn't have survived unless there was truth behind it, then feel free to offer an alternative explanation that sufficiently deals with all the factors that are backed by scholarship.


And typically this is done by piling on more assumptions, like:

- The written records we have are accurate and objective

Do you think the evidence goes against that assumption? Anyway, do you think that Christ wasn't crucified, didn't hail from Nazareth in Galilee, that it wasn't at least claimed that he had a Resurrection as conceived of by Jews, etc.? On what do you base the claim that these historical claims weren't true?


- The written records we have are contemporary

Josephus didn't write about the Jewish War until around 20 years later. Tacitus didn't write about Nero until around 50 years later. Does that make either of their testimonies unreliable? If we are to side with scholars like J.A.T. Robinson and Kenneth Gentry, all Gospels and the whole of the NT would have been written within less than 40 years. If we are to side with scholars like Kummel, the Gospels can be dated between 30-70 years later.

But still, in a society that favored oral transmission to written, we would expect oral transmission for a significant amount of time before written records were made.


- God exists and preserves the message (talk about begging the question)

I've never made the claim that God caused innerant transmission and translation. In fact, I don't know anyone who does except the KJV-only crowd. I'm guessing that you think I haven't examined the evidence for and against existence of God and have just rather assumed that for as long as can be remembered.


- People only act in a reasonable fashion

Hardly. It doesn't rest on that assumption. Rather, it rests on the idea that people won't go so extremely against their social sensibilities unless there was a good reason to. Now even this has its exceptions (as does just about any principle), but it would be a stretch to say that this accounts for all the converts to Christianity that would have been spread far and wide. You really think there were that many spread out so far and Christianity just happened to get them all?


- A large group of people will tend to act reasonably

Is it not a safe assumption that at least the vast majority within the group will act relatively reasonably? Do you think that there just happened to be an unexpectedly large group of deviants that Christianity just happened to get a hold of and survive on?


- People avoid persecution

Well, if there's no reason to stick around and continue to be persecuted (read: there wasn't anything you were getting out of this religion that you couldn't go elsewhere for and not be so much on the bad side of society), it's pretty safe to say they would avoid it, unless Christianity not only got hold of so many extreme deviants, but many extreme masochists as well. In a honor-and-shame group-oriented society, with their kind of persecution, people would rather be a part of the group than be persecuted and shamed by that group.


- People investigate closely before they accept a belief

In such a society as we are talking about, you'd want to get your facts straight if you're going to risk being declared deviant and get all the things that come with being so declared. What we're talking about is not a light issue and it would not have been treated as such in that society. As honor was so important, people would want their facts straight before risking giving up that worldly honor.


- Witnesses can't be wrong

Well, if they were wrong and indeed the body of Christ hadn't risen from the grave, all that would be needed was to produce the body of Jesus in the early days when Christianity was just spreading in Judea. If the situation was different (i.e. Christ was torn apart by dogs or never even existed), all that would be needed by the potential converts was contrary testimony. As can be seen from the factors, people would not be inclined to believe such deviants. If there was no good reason to believe what the deviants said, the deviants wouldn't be believed and everyone could all go about their business.


- We have eyewitness reports

On what grounds do you say we don't? Eyewitness testimony can be reported from other sources.


...and the list goes on.

I'm afraid that you assume that those assumptions are not safe and I was uncritical in making those assumptions. You are still no closer to refuting what has been presented.

[saladfingers]

You think so huh? You think I don't critically weigh matters? Why? Just because I'm a Christian? For your information, I would be willing to leave Christianity if it is proven wrong. If the data I find doesn't agree with my presupposition, it's time to change the presupposition or at the very least, leave the issue in the air for a while. Could it actually be that none of the explanations offered have been sufficient? Is that so impossible to think? If you have a good explanation, feel free to offer it. But if it's weighed, measured, and found wanting, don't expect me to give it credence.

You are 100% absolutely positively SAFE in your beleifs, as there is not one peice of evidence that exists, or has ever existed that would prove TIF wrong. It is impossible to disprove a negative.

You are SAFE!

[LGM]

His sources are " the first were eyewitnesses" and his investigations into the veracity of the events.

Sorry...who were they? He doesn't identify ANY sources.



I agree....he feels it is worthy of investigation. From this investigation he concludes that it is legit.

Perhaps his 'investigation' was simply copying another 'gospel' he had knowledge of, or was in possession, and SELLING it to his patron.

Luke had to eat and pay the rent.




You must have a different verse than I have....where does it say this?

You should research something known as the 'synoptic problem'.



Seems to me that he is writing an "orderly account for you" of the "things that have been fulfilled" because he "carefully investigated everything from the beginning".

I'm sure it does seem that way to you, an a confessed believer.

Too bad it doesn't pass muster with the historical critical method.

People peddling religious stories, that have clearly been copied from earlier authors, to patrons who want those stories confirmed to feel good about their beliefs, end up getting discounted as a reliable by historians.

If you're looking for the source, he is known only as 'mark'.



To conclude that all he did was copy an anonymous gospel is pure speculation.

Which is all you can do as well.

But hey, I'm sure it coulda been that Luke really tracked down and interviewed the 100 year old virgin Mary and Herod in their nursing homes, and the angel Gabriel sitting on his cloud, and got the complete scoop.

[TolkienFan]

Just stopped in to correct an error. Josephus actually wrote the about the Jewish War only a few years later. But still, Tacitus and Suetonius didn't write of Nero's reign until around 50 years later. Pliny the Younger, our only source concerning the event, didn't write about the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius until around 30 years later. Herodotus didn't write about the wars between Persia and Greece until around 50-60 years later.

[saladfingers]

If there was no real reason to believe, just a simple promise of a pleasant afterlife that you could find anywhere, why should the Christians have stuck with this belief system instead of going to another that could have offered them this and not have all the offensive things attached to it? In a society where honor was the most important thing, going through such dishonor for something one knew was not true does not agree with what we know of ancient society as a whole.

And herein lies the crux. We know alot about the ancient world, yes, but we don't know everything, and surely not enough to arrive at the conclusion that Christianity was the "impossible faith". There are some intangible dynamics that could have played major parts in altering the perception of what is shameful and honorable...things so subtle and immaterial that no one has access to any data about them from the ancient world, but we can see the effects in modern honor/shame societies.

There are many mitigating factors that very easily could have persuaded that the life and death of Jesus was in fact an honorable thing. Since this was an unprecented event, with revolutionary and complete theologies surrounding the events, what we know about these ancient people still is not enough to predict how they would have perceived these things.

If crucified saviour stunts happened often back then, and we had data on how these ancient people responded, then we could say that everyone would have behaved in X fashion toward these completely new, totally revolutionary, and never before imagined events, stories, beleivers, etc. But the story/event is completely, diametrically, geometrically, fundamentally different from anything that had ever happened, and completely foreign to ANYTHING that anyone had ever dreamed of or imagined. <---Was it not?????

TIF is good supporting evidence to one who already beleives, but it is not proof as there are many other possibilities.

[saladfingers]

In a honor-and-shame group-oriented society, with their kind of persecution, people would rather be a part of the group than be persecuted and shamed by that group.

...unless, of course, people began to form their own groups, in which they could generate their own standards of honor and shame that every member of that group could benefit from.

[LGM]

And herein lies the crux. We know alot about the ancient world, yes, but we don't know everything, and surely not enough to arrive at the conclusion that Christianity was the "impossible faith".
Actually, we know incredibly little about the origins of the messianic/apocalyptic cults that would eventually become known as Christianity. We know virtually nothing about the early people who became members of these cults.

Which is why some armchair 21st century apologist claiming he KNOWS what they would think, or do, or find 'offensive' is ludicrous. There is nothing 'impossible' about it, and to claim so is pure hubris and hyperbole with no evidence to support it.

[element771]

Sorry...who were they? He doesn't identify ANY sources.

You are applying modern historical record keeping to ancients who did not use the same style of recording history. Do you really think that Luke would write....

Well according to Mark Smith from Jerusalem, he claims to have seen Jesus walk on water. This is the 5th person that claims to have seen this...others include Jeff, Peter, Sam, and Jason.

Even if he did name names, you would just declare that he was making them up




Perhaps his 'investigation' was simply copying another 'gospel' he had knowledge of, or was in possession, and SELLING it to his patron.

Luke had to eat and pay the rent.

Huh, why are you just making things up? Perhaps he was really doing what he claimed he was doing....



Too bad it doesn't pass muster with the historical critical method.


Are you a historian?

It seems to not pass the muster of LGM's historical critical method...but I would posit the LGM's historical critical method is to accept nothing at face value in the NT and make up theories with no credible evidence in order to discredit anything found within.

Do you judge all ancient historical text with the same level of scrutiny? If so, how do you believe any of them since the NT is one of the best established ancient documents? If not, why?



People peddling religious stories, that have clearly been copied from earlier authors, to patrons who want those stories confirmed to feel good about their beliefs, end up getting discounted as a reliable by historians.

Then being martyred for your trouble...that sounds like fun. Do you think it would be worth being killed for a lie?

Which historians are these and is their view a tiny fraction of historians?

Are these the same historians who believe that Jesus never existed?

[historic salve]

...unless, of course, people began to form their own groups, in which they could generate their own standards of honor and shame that every member of that group could benefit from.
No, that didn't happen. "Standards of honor," if you want to put it that way, were much the same everywhere. Crucifixion was always shameful, for instance, despite the protests of some ignorant people (yes, I've actually heard this) that folks in the first century could have gotten a "rush" from being persecuted.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by saladfingers

And herein lies the crux. We know alot about the ancient world, yes, but we don't know everything, and surely not enough to arrive at the conclusion that Christianity was the "impossible faith". There are some intangible dynamics that could have played major parts in altering the perception of what is shameful and honorable...things so subtle and immaterial that no one has access to any data about them from the ancient world, but we can see the effects in modern honor/shame societies.

Tell it to the scholars. Tell them that they're just wasting their time. I'm not operating on what might have happened, I'm operating on what the scholars say actually was. Unless there was a strong change of perception where crucifixion was not seen as that bad (which is contradicted by Justin Martyr's statement cited earlier as well as Paul's in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and the statement in Hebrews 12:2), then we have to go with what the evidence shows.


There are many mitigating factors that very easily could have persuaded that the life and death of Jesus was in fact an honorable thing. Since this was an unprecented event, with revolutionary and complete theologies surrounding the events, what we know about these ancient people still is not enough to predict how they would have perceived these things.

The idea of worshipping a deity that when through such a terrible status degradation ritual only to not rise from the dead would be a statement incredibly presposterous to the ancient mind. However, if he did rise from the dead, that changes things. If there was no evidence of this occurring, this is one of many factors that Christianity couldn't easily overcome.

Evidence of him rising from the dead (as well as others that were presented) could change perceptions of this guy named Jesus, but simple promises of eternal life if you'll just believe in him, wouldn't help.


If crucified saviour stunts happened often back then, and we had data on how these ancient people responded, then we could say that everyone would have behaved in X fashion toward these completely new, totally revolutionary, and never before imagined events, stories, beleivers, etc. But the story/event is completely, diametrically, geometrically, fundamentally different from anything that had ever happened, and completely foreign to ANYTHING that anyone had ever dreamed of or imagined. <---Was it not?????

My friend, the idea of crucifixion was offensive enough, just thinking about it made people cringe (see the link in the OP for more perceptions of it in the time than have been offered thus far). Saying that a god went through this and that you still somehow honor him (mind you, without the vindication that was the Resurrection), wouldn't really leave a good perception of you or that god in the ancient mind. Precisely because it went against everything they could have imagined (a god who would degrade himself like this, as well as many other factors) made it so offensive.

BTW, will anyone ever realize that we're not just talking about the crucifixion and martyrdom here? There are various other factors that are taken into account by this argument.


TIF is good supporting evidence to one who already beleives, but it is not proof as there are many other possibilities.

Well, you have some that can explain the evidence as well as the idea of the Resurrection (which is what the TIF, as well as the whole of the Christian faith, rests upon)?

[Carpedm9587]

If there was no real reason to believe, just a simple promise of a pleasant afterlife that you could find anywhere, why should the Christians have stuck with this belief system instead of going to another that could have offered them this and not have all the offensive things attached to it?

Who said "there was no reason to believe?" I simply said you can't substantiate that the most likely reason they believed was "it was true." There are many reasons a person can have to believe something.


In a society where honor was the most important thing, going through such dishonor for something one knew was not true does not agree with what we know of ancient society as a whole.

The honor/shame thing is that author's central theme for a lot of things. Again, you (nor he) have substantiated that honor/shame was THE most important thing. A facet of the culture, yes. And you have again assumed that the opposite of "believed" is "knows is not true." This is the logical error consistently made.


This was a society that was group-oriented. Being so cut off from your the family group, the national group, and the universal group for something which has nothing behind it (but simply an offensive myth) isn't exactly something a collectivist likes the idea of. Such devices as have been mentioned were measures by which the deviant was shamed back into compliance with society. Whether or not it would drive all away, it would definitely drive most away. Going through so much simply for something that they could get with another religion makes absolutely no sense.

Again the list of assumptions here is mind-boggling. You assume that the driving force to success was the members of that society - yet what we have for records suggests that success there was nominal and Paul took things to other people/cultures. Even if it WAS an honor/shame society, you presume to know what any given individual would find honorable or shameful. In other words, you consistently assume you can know what motivates individuals, or even relatively small groups, based on 2,00 years of hindsight to a culture that no longer exists that is relatively poorly documented.


You can't establish them? Explain that to the scholars. Tell them how and why they're wasting their time.

Most scholars appear to kmow this and don't make such absolute claims about mythical historical elements. It is mostly the theologians, who seem to love to call themselves scholars, that dabble in this way, AFAICT. And it does not appear there is any "telling them" anything.


Of course they are not unexplainable. What is being said is that they aren't explainable from the perspective that the Resurrection didn't take place. More specifically in the OP, that they aren't explainable under the paradigm of the Christ-myth.

I'm not an adherent of the "Christ-myth" if you are referring to the theory that Jesus never existed. There appears to be sufficient evidence (to me) that a person existed who fit this role in history. I don't believe, however, that he was a god or the son of a god.

That you do not accept any explanation except "it must have been true" is not a surprise, and this discussion will most probably not alter that. That you have no substantiated the position doe snot appear to be relevant. The fact is, there are numerous explanations for the events of the first century, but all except the one you want to believe will be dismissed as "implausible." I've seen it before, and we'll see it again.


You think so huh? You think I don't critically weigh matters? Why? Just because I'm a Christian?

I think you aren't very critically weighing THIS matter. I have no opinion about your general habits, nor is your Christianity part of that assessment. Your acceptance of arguments I have examined and found wanting is.


For your information, I would be willing to leave Christianity if it is proven wrong. If the data I find doesn't agree with my presupposition, it's time to change the presupposition or at the very least, leave the issue in the air for a while.

I applaud you. In this respect, we are of like kind - if this is true.


Could it actually be that none of the explanations offered have been sufficient?

Sufficient to you, apparently. Since I find them to be riddled with holes, my perspective is a bit different.


Is that so impossible to think? If you have a good explanation, feel free to offer it. But if it's weighed, measured, and found wanting, don't expect me to give it credence.

Likewise. And your explanations have been weighed and measured and found wanting - and there are far too many plausible explanations you too casually dismiss, for whatever reasons you have.


By success, I basically mean that Christianity was able to not only survive for a very unexpected amount of time, but was also able to spread far and wide.

Again - we know that it did. The "unexpected" part of that equation is an unsupported opinion. And we don't know why it did survive as widely as it did. There are many factors at play, so we can make educated guesses. But the evidence is too fragmentary to make definitive assertions.


There's no leap, just small steps backed up by another factor. If it's wrong that Christianity wouldn't have survived unless there was truth behind it, then feel free to offer an alternative explanation that sufficiently deals with all the factors that are backed by scholarship.

The statement "you have not substantiated the claim that the most plausible explanation for the success of Christianity was that it was true" is not the logical equivalent of "Christianity wouldn't have survived unless there was truth behind it." I have said the former; I am not arguing the latter. In fact I do find that many belief systems and ideas that were/are not fully true (e.g., most belief systems have elements of truth to them, in my experience) were/are widely accepted. Christianity is no different in this respect.


Do you think the evidence goes against that assumption?

I think the assumption is unsubstantiated.


Anyway, do you think that Christ wasn't crucified, didn't hail from Nazareth in Galilee, that it wasn't at least claimed that he had a Resurrection as conceived of by Jews, etc.? On what do you base the claim that these historical claims weren't true?

I don't know where Jesus hailed from. I know the gospels claim it was Galilee. I have no basis for knowing if that is true. I know the bible claims he resurrected, and there are first hand accounts of people who held that belief. So I know, with reasonable confidence, what they believed. I don't know what happened.

I have not said the claims are not true - I have said they are unsubstantiated. That they are unsubstantiated coupled with the nature of the claims, my experience with parallel claims in other venues, and my knowledge of the world (such as it is) leads me to believe the supernatural claims about Jesus were most likely not true - but they were believed by many to be true - just as they are today.


Josephus didn't write about the Jewish War until around 20 years later. Tacitus didn't write about Nero until around 50 years later. Does that make either of their testimonies unreliable? If we are to side with scholars like J.A.T. Robinson and Kenneth Gentry, all Gospels and the whole of the NT would have been written within less than 40 years. If we are to side with scholars like Kummel, the Gospels can be dated between 30-70 years later.

I have had this discussion with others many times. When historians attempt to establish the accuracy of a historical claim, they look for many elements. They look for supporting evidence from other sources. They look for fit into established historical narrative. They look for confirmation of authorship. They look at trust of authorship. The testimonies you refer to above have bee deemed reliable, AFAIK, because the pass many of those tests and their is little (if any) dissenting voice from any discipline. The same is not true of the gospel narratives.


But still, in a society that favored oral transmission to written, we would expect oral transmission for a significant amount of time before written records were made.

Yes, we would - with all of the risk that comes with oral tradition. That it occurred and was natural to the circumstance is not the issue. That it produced an accurate and reliable historical record is. I don't think you can show that it did.


I've never made the claim that God caused inerrant transmission and translation. In fact, I don't know anyone who does except the KJV-only crowd. I'm guessing that you think I haven't examined the evidence for and against existence of God and have just rather assumed that for as long as can be remembered.

I'm not accusing you of any of these in particular, TF. I'm merely citing a list of the type of assumptions people who cling to the "impossible faith" credo tend to make. Some may be true of you - and some may not. My guess is that some will be - and your responses (above and below) suggest that is true.


Hardly. It doesn't rest on that assumption. Rather, it rests on the idea that people won't go so extremely against their social sensibilities unless there was a good reason to. Now even this has its exceptions (as does just about any principle), but it would be a stretch to say that this accounts for all the converts to Christianity that would have been spread far and wide. You really think there were that many spread out so far and Christianity just happened to get them all?

You are correct - but your error is the assumption that you can know what would constitute a "good reason" for these people - individually or collectively, or that you can know the only plausible reason was "it must have been true."

As for your final question, I think history shows us that a belief that attains sufficient visibility will attract those who are attracted to it - regardless of where they are. Social experiments have shown that as little as 1% of a society accepting a credo is sufficient for it to become widespread very quickly - even without modern communication systems.

I'm sure, as with today, some people believed out of fear of not accepting the message (and being damned). Some believed because of the attraction of a loving god and eternal life. Some believed because they examined the evidence and thought it was convincing. Some believed because they were sheep, and Christianity has always had powerful leadership voices. I have no basis for thinking that the range of reasons for believing back then was any narrower than it is today - and certainly no basis for accepting that "it was true" is the only viable basis.


Is it not a safe assumption that at least the vast majority within the group will act relatively reasonably? Do you think that there just happened to be an unexpectedly large group of deviants that Christianity just happened to get a hold of and survive on?

No - I don't. History is full of large groups acting irrationally. Why would I give early Christianity a "by" from that possibility? Do I know it to be true? Of course not - no more than you know it to be untrue. It is merely one of a huge range of possibilities.


Well, if there's no reason to stick around and continue to be persecuted (read: there wasn't anything you were getting out of this religion that you couldn't go elsewhere for and not be so much on the bad side of society), it's pretty safe to say they would avoid it, unless Christianity not only got hold of so many extreme deviants, but many extreme masochists as well. In a honor-and-shame group-oriented society, with their kind of persecution, people would rather be a part of the group than be persecuted and shamed by that group.

Sorry, TF, but you continue to make assumptions. Some people avoid persecution. Some people thrive on it. And it seems reasonable to me that a religion that encourages people to rejoice when they are persecuted because their god will reward them will attract people who are likely to do exactly that.


In such a society as we are talking about, you'd want to get your facts straight if you're going to risk being declared deviant and get all the things that come with being so declared. What we're talking about is not a light issue and it would not have been treated as such in that society. As honor was so important, people would want their facts straight before risking giving up that worldly honor.

Again - you make assumption after assumption. People do not behave that way consistently today. History has not shown that they behave consistently that way at any point. Some people do. Maybe even most people. Not all people. You are projecting a degree of intellectual fidelity on this people that neither the evidence, our lessons from history, nor simple common sense can support.


Well, if they were wrong and indeed the body of Christ hadn't risen from the grave, all that would be needed was to produce the body of Jesus in the early days when Christianity was just spreading in Judea. If the situation was different (i.e. Christ was torn apart by dogs or never even existed), all that would be needed by the potential converts was contrary testimony. As can be seen from the factors, people would not be inclined to believe such deviants. If there was no good reason to believe what the deviants said, the deviants wouldn't be believed and everyone could all go about their business.

The spread of early Christianity in Judea was not great shakes, TF. We're not talking about a cultural sea change. It wasn't until years (decades?) after the death of Jesus that we have any external evidence of any substantial movement. Our record of the earliest days comes from the same questionable source - the community itself. It's entirely possible that the first decade or so of Christianity the cult was seen as exactly that - a deviant cult barely worth notice.

By the time we get to a major movement - they had the same problem you have today.


On what grounds do you say we don't? Eyewitness testimony can be reported from other sources.

Last I knew, and eyewitness was someone who was there and saw and reported. As soon as you have someone else reporting what an eyewitness said - it's no longer testimony of an eyewitness - it's testimony about what an eyewitness said. It's once removed with all of the possible miscommunication that can occur in that dynamic.

But if you think we have an actual eyewitness account of anything, by all means produce it.


I'm afraid that you assume that those assumptions are not safe and I was uncritical in making those assumptions. You are still no closer to refuting what has been presented.

I have nothing to refute, TF, because you have not made any substantiated assertions. I am merely pointing out that fact. I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove yourself right - and for the same reasons: we do not have sufficient evidence to do much more than speculate on what motivated them, and how early Christianity moved from individual to cult to major religion. The variables are vast, and the evidence comparatively constrained.

Michel

[LGM]

No, that didn't happen. "Standards of honor," if you want to put it that way, were much the same everywhere.

Hilarious.

Feel free to explain how the 'standards of honor' were 'much the same' no matter if you were a Roman ruler, a prostitute, a captured slave, a Jewish High Priest, a self castrated follower of Attis, a mildly retarded goat herder, a blind beggar in the street, a crippled refugee from the Jewish war, etc., etc.

It's hard for me to imagine anyone more ridiculously blinkered and wholesale ignorant of the diversity of human situations that existed in the ancient Mediterranean than the simpleton who would make the above statement.. It's statements like these that reveal your 'standard of intellect', your standard for making hilariously ignorant sweeping generalizations.

Lets try one more time and see if it sinks in...

Neither YOU, nor Tolkienfan, nor JP Holding, nor any other armchair apologist wannabe, or 'scholar', knows or can speak for what everyone and ANYONE thought was offensive to THEIR honor in the diverse cultural mileau of the ancient Mediterranean.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

Who said "there was no reason to believe?" I simply said you can't substantiate that the most likely reason they believed was "it was true." There are many reasons a person can have to believe something.

Without the Resurrection, there wasn't a real reason to believe. It would just be a promise of eternal life wrapped up in a much more dishonorable package.


The honor/shame thing is that author's central theme for a lot of things. Again, you (nor he) have substantiated that honor/shame was THE most important thing. A facet of the culture, yes. And you have again assumed that the opposite of "believed" is "knows is not true." This is the logical error consistently made.

Read David DeSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity. According to him, that which was honorable was of prime importance to the ancients. Most relevant to this is:


The promise of honor and threat of disgrace [were] prominent goads to pursue a certain kind of life and to avoid many alternatives.

David DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity, p. 24.


Again the list of assumptions here is mind-boggling. You assume that the driving force to success was the members of that society - yet what we have for records suggests that success there was nominal and Paul took things to other people/cultures. Even if it WAS an honor/shame society, you presume to know what any given individual would find honorable or shameful. In other words, you consistently assume you can know what motivates individuals, or even relatively small groups, based on 2,00 years of hindsight to a culture that no longer exists that is relatively poorly documented.

Why don't you try actually proving those assumptions wrong. Your argument too rests upon assumptions. These are:


The Resurrection isn't necessarily the best explanation
The culture wasn't honor-and-shame
That we can't know how the ancients would have perceived things (despite all scholars in this field have said)


and so on.

Anyone can point out assumptions, it's proving those wrong that is the real exercise.

What causes you to think that success was minimal. The day they first evangelized, there were 3,000 converts. Unless that's all they had (probably not a safe assumption), I wouldn't say the success in that culture was minimal until Paul came around (which wasn't that much later). But Paul taking it to other cultures wouldn't really help either as basic concepts of honor-and-shame were universal at the time. If you have issue with that statement, stop taking it up with me and take it up with the scholars telling them how they don't really know anything and they're wasting their time studying.


Most scholars appear to kmow this and don't make such absolute claims about mythical historical elements. It is mostly the theologians, who seem to love to call themselves scholars, that dabble in this way, AFAICT. And it does not appear there is any "telling them" anything.

Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh, Jerome Neyrey, John Pilch, and David DeSilva do not qualify as theologians. Know your stuff before you start throwing out insults about how only theologians do such and such and are not real scholars. Telling them that they can't know anything about what they're studying is what I'm referring to.


I'm not an adherent of the "Christ-myth" if you are referring to the theory that Jesus never existed. There appears to be sufficient evidence (to me) that a person existed who fit this role in history. I don't believe, however, that he was a god or the son of a god.

That you do not accept any explanation except "it must have been true" is not a surprise, and this discussion will most probably not alter that. That you have no substantiated the position doe snot appear to be relevant. The fact is, there are numerous explanations for the events of the first century, but all except the one you want to believe will be dismissed as "implausible." I've seen it before, and we'll see it again.

Well good, you have that much going for you. I was just saying that the OP was actually examining whether the Christ-myth thesis explains how Christianity came about (though it's turned into an argument about the argument itself). As you don't think that the Christ-myth idea has sufficient backing, you would agree with that much of the OP. This discussion wasn't meant to be all that open-ended.

I'd accept another explanation if it is plausible and explains all the data better than the idea of the Resurrection. I'd advise that you don't merely assume obstinance on my part. Would you like me assuming that you're just another fundy atheist that doesn't care what people say but just trolls around making inane remarks? Of course not, nor do I assume that about you.

This was based off the article on Holding's site, I offered links to that site for substantiation. Though I have actually provided some of what's there in this thread. If I didn't expect you to follow the links, I'd be up here basically plagiarizing trying to re-invent the wheel. Besides my substantiation, as well as Holding's, comes from the scholars who've studied the field and know about the various factors in that article.

You claim that there are numerous explanations but you offer no substantiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that hypocrisy? You want to say there's numerous explanations, offer a few and we'll examine them and see if they explain the data as well. Once again, you're making the assumption that I'll simply dismiss any alternative explanation a priori. What in the world makes you think that? Do you think I'm simply uncritical and you are simply because I'm Christian and you're not?


I think you aren't very critically weighing THIS matter. I have no opinion about your general habits, nor is your Christianity part of that assessment. Your acceptance of arguments I have examined and found wanting is.

Well, offer substantiation of that accusation. Offer a legitimate, plausible explanation that properly explains the data we have.


I applaud you. In this respect, we are of like kind - if this is true.

It is true. I don't want to be a part of something that's not true. If it can be demonstrated that what I'm a part of at least doesn't contain the essential truths that it claims to, I would be willing to leave, and I'm pretty sure I speak for every other Christian on this board when I say that.


Sufficient to you, apparently. Since I find them to be riddled with holes, my perspective is a bit different.

Well, you could always offer something you think explains the data better. In this matter, it doesn't really matter what the perspective is, it matters what actually is.


Likewise. And your explanations have been weighed and measured and found wanting - and there are far too many plausible explanations you too casually dismiss, for whatever reasons you have.

So far, I have yet to see an adequate alternative explanation brought to the fore that actually deals with the data. If there are so many, it couldn't hurt to provide one right? Bring it up so that we may examine it.


Again - we know that it did. The "unexpected" part of that equation is an unsupported opinion. And we don't know why it did survive as widely as it did. There are many factors at play, so we can make educated guesses. But the evidence is too fragmentary to make definitive assertions.

It's supported by what we know of the social perceptions of the day. If you want to say it's not enough to actually say anything about their social perceptions, take it up with the scholars who have actually written books on them.


The statement "you have not substantiated the claim that the most plausible explanation for the success of Christianity was that it was true" is not the logical equivalent of "Christianity wouldn't have survived unless there was truth behind it." I have said the former; I am not arguing the latter. In fact I do find that many belief systems and ideas that were/are not fully true (e.g., most belief systems have elements of truth to them, in my experience) were/are widely accepted. Christianity is no different in this respect.

But the most essential truth claim behind Christianity is the Resurrection. If that truth claim is false, there isn't really anything left. But I guess it's my fault for not being more accurate in my statement. What I meant was that if it didn't at least have the truth of the Resurrection behind it, it couldn't have survived. More trivial claims of truth don't matter if the Resurrection is false. That is the truth I was referring to.


I think the assumption is unsubstantiated.

Well, that's sad.


I don't know where Jesus hailed from. I know the gospels claim it was Galilee. I have no basis for knowing if that is true. I know the bible claims he resurrected, and there are first hand accounts of people who held that belief. So I know, with reasonable confidence, what they believed. I don't know what happened.

I have not said the claims are not true - I have said they are unsubstantiated. That they are unsubstantiated coupled with the nature of the claims, my experience with parallel claims in other venues, and my knowledge of the world (such as it is) leads me to believe the supernatural claims about Jesus were most likely not true - but they were believed by many to be true - just as they are today.

What reason do you have to doubt the data we do have? By this same logic, I could say Josephus claims the Jews were in a war with the Romans and he claimed that Jerusalem was attacked and that there was much bloodshed in the city, but I have no reason to believe him. Do you really think that there was no Jewish War or that Jerusalem wasn't attacked? Or would you rather rely on what Josephus had to say because we don't have a reason to doubt him? It's the same with what is claimed in the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

How are they unsubstantiated if we have historical records which make such claims? What are you expecting? A birth certificate that says, "Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, though born fo a virgin, was born in Bethelehem, but raised in Nazareth in the region of Galilee,"? Skeptics could just as easily claim that such a thing was forged. By this logic, we would be doubting everything written in historical texts.

Nature of the claims? What is the nature of the claims of where he hailed from and how he died that makes the Gospel reportings unreliable?

Experience with parallel claims? What are you saying? Because X was wrong in situation A, Y must also be wrong in situation B?

Knowledge of this world? Is this more of that, I don't believe in miracles because I haven't seen one personally?

As I've said before, let's see what explanation apart from the Resurrection sufficiently explains the data.


I have had this discussion with others many times. When historians attempt to establish the accuracy of a historical claim, they look for many elements. They look for supporting evidence from other sources. They look for fit into established historical narrative. They look for confirmation of authorship. They look at trust of authorship. The testimonies you refer to above have bee deemed reliable, AFAIK, because the pass many of those tests and their is little (if any) dissenting voice from any discipline. The same is not true of the gospel narratives.

So too have the Gospels been deemed reliable by many historians because they have used such criteria. Those who have said the Gospels are unreliable have been refuted according to these criteria. It matters not whether there's dissent, but if that dissent is well-founded.

But really, the whole thing has nothing to do with your earlier implicit claim that the sources we have are not contemporary. As such, you have been shown that we have sources that date within the same timeframe as these references. The reliability of the references are another matter. This was only meant to address the implicit claim that we don't have "contemporary sources".


Yes, we would - with all of the risk that comes with oral tradition. That it occurred and was natural to the circumstance is not the issue. That it produced an accurate and reliable historical record is. I don't think you can show that it did.

Why exactly would you say that? Oral transmission was considered preferrable to the ancients who were much more illiterate than not. According to Samuel Byrskog:


Writing was usually seen as supplementary to the oral discourse. Orators should avoid note-books that were too detailed. One is reminded of Quintillian's cricism of Laenas' dependence on such notes and his clear-cut advice: "For my own part, however, I think we should not write anything which we do not intend to commit to memory"...Writing was not avoided as such, but functioned mainly as a memorandum of what the person already should remeber from oral communication.

Samuel Byrskog, Story as History, p. 116

Also, Gregory A. Boyd notes the acknowledgment of the reliability of ancient oral transmission:


Studies by anthropologists such as Albert B. Lord and Jan Vansina have demonstrated that the transmission of traditions in oral societies follow a generally fixed, if flexible pattern - similar to the type witnessed to in the Gospels themselves. Related to this, comtemporary psycholinguistic studies have served to confirm that the techniques that charactrerized Jesus' oral teaching methods would have made for 'very accurate communication between Jesus and his followers' and would have 'ensured excellent semantic recall.'

Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or the Son of God?, p. 121-2.

But even if we disregard ancient memory capacity, N.T. Wright says this:


If we come to the ministry of Jeus as first-century historians, and forget our twentieth-century assumptions about mass media, the overwhelming probability is that most of what Jesus said, he said not twice but 200 times, with (of course) a myriad of local variations.

N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 123.

For more on oral transmission, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html)


I'm not accusing you of any of these in particular, TF. I'm merely citing a list of the type of assumptions people who cling to the "impossible faith" credo tend to make. Some may be true of you - and some may not. My guess is that some will be - and your responses (above and below) suggest that is true.

Okay then. But of course, the thing is not pointing out assumptions, but proving them wrong.


You are correct - but your error is the assumption that you can know what would constitute a "good reason" for these people - individually or collectively, or that you can know the only plausible reason was "it must have been true."

As for your final question, I think history shows us that a belief that attains sufficient visibility will attract those who are attracted to it - regardless of where they are. Social experiments have shown that as little as 1% of a society accepting a credo is sufficient for it to become widespread very quickly - even without modern communication systems.

I'm sure, as with today, some people believed out of fear of not accepting the message (and being damned). Some believed because of the attraction of a loving god and eternal life. Some believed because they examined the evidence and thought it was convincing. Some believed because they were sheep, and Christianity has always had powerful leadership voices. I have no basis for thinking that the range of reasons for believing back then was any narrower than it is today - and certainly no basis for accepting that "it was true" is the only viable basis.

Once again implicitly claiming that the scholars who study this and have written books on ancient perceptions are wasting their time.

But the question is, how did Christianity even maitained sufficient visibility with all the factors against it.

You're still missing the point. It's not as if these things weren't offered in cults of the day. The thing is that it was in a much more offensive and dishonorable package with Christianity. Charismatic preachers aren't going to do you much good when you have so much offensive about your movement. Perhaps the closest parallel I can think of at this point (though it doesn't have as many complex factors) is a charismatic preacher trying to tell us about how pedophilia is not only not wrong, but is preferrable to do.

Well, reasons back then kind of were narrower because of all the things that would be considered offensive about it that would not be considered so offensive in today's individualist American culture (as I don't know much about conversions abroad, I can't say much about them).


No - I don't. History is full of large groups acting irrationally. Why would I give early Christianity a "by" from that possibility? Do I know it to be true? Of course not - no more than you know it to be untrue. It is merely one of a huge range of possibilities.

Once again, the question is if anything in that huge range sufficiently accounts for all the data like the Resurrection does. It's one thing to see a group act seemingly irrationally, it's another to actually find an explanation as to why that was.


Sorry, TF, but you continue to make assumptions. Some people avoid persecution. Some people thrive on it. And it seems reasonable to me that a religion that encourages people to rejoice when they are persecuted because their god will reward them will attract people who are likely to do exactly that.

Yet again, the question is are those assumptions well-founded? It's not about whether I'm making assumptions or not, as everybody does.

But if they have no reason to assume there's any real truth behind that statement, wouldn't it be much, much easier for them to just drop it? You really think that such a large group of people would be willing to go through persecution of such a terrible nature simply because someone told them that this offensive religion promises eternal life (which is what every religion did). Do you really think they would have gotten a rush out of persecution that could have been considered worse than death?


Again - you make assumption after assumption. People do not behave that way consistently today. History has not shown that they behave consistently that way at any point. Some people do. Maybe even most people. Not all people. You are projecting a degree of intellectual fidelity on this people that neither the evidence, our lessons from history, nor simple common sense can support.

Again, you seem to think that just making assumptions makes an argument suspect. It's a question of if there's a good reason to make assumptions rather than if assumptions should be made (as everybody makes them at some point about something). This whole time you've been assuming that the Resurrection is not the most plausible idea. It's no big deal to point out assumptions.

You have yet to demonstrate against the scholars that these things they observe about ancient social perceptions are not true. For people to so extremely go against social perceptions and to see it as nothing unusual for people to adhere to borders on insanity. Whatever problems you have about ideas of ancient perception, I suggest you take it up with the scholars.


The spread of early Christianity in Judea was not great shakes, TF. We're not talking about a cultural sea change. It wasn't until years (decades?) after the death of Jesus that we have any external evidence of any substantial movement. Our record of the earliest days comes from the same questionable source - the community itself. It's entirely possible that the first decade or so of Christianity the cult was seen as exactly that - a deviant cult barely worth notice.

By the time we get to a major movement - they had the same problem you have today.

At the very least, Christianity would have been conceived of as a grossly deviant group that desired to overturn social mores without a good reason to do so. As the Pharisees were so very opposed to Christ, you don't think they'd do anything they could to discredit the movement which stemmed from him?

How is it a questionable source? Do you have another source on the issue which makes it questionable?

A deviant cult barely worth notice is an oxymoron as far as collectivists are concerned. A deviant cult would be subject to measures mentioned earlier that were designed to shame them back into compliance. Someone making such offensive claims wouldn't be ignored, but shamed.


Last I knew, and eyewitness was someone who was there and saw and reported. As soon as you have someone else reporting what an eyewitness said - it's no longer testimony of an eyewitness - it's testimony about what an eyewitness said. It's once removed with all of the possible miscommunication that can occur in that dynamic.

But if you think we have an actual eyewitness account of anything, by all means produce it.

But the eyewitnesses themselves didn't have to write something. Their testimony could be reported by someone else. So a guy who writes a book that reports what eyewitnesses saw, is not featuring eyewitness testimony? Unless you have good reason to doubt what the reporter says about eyewitness testimony, the whole objection is nonsensical.

The Gospels! What's so hard to understand about that? Even if the eyewitnesses themselves didn't write at least two of the Gospels (Matthew and John), what reason do we have to assume that none of the Gospels report eyewitness testimony?


I have nothing to refute, TF, because you have not made any substantiated assertions. I am merely pointing out that fact. I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove yourself right - and for the same reasons: we do not have sufficient evidence to do much more than speculate on what motivated them, and how early Christianity moved from individual to cult to major religion. The variables are vast, and the evidence comparatively constrained.

If you're going to ignore what I say, why should I even bother? There's substantiation in the links as well as my own posts. Why don't you actually deal with it instead of dismissing it?

I have the evidence that the scholars of the field have obtained. If you don't think that's sufficient, take it up with them. The potential variable are vast, the thing is, we're actually trying to determine what explanation best explains all the data.

I think I might have just upset the balance of Tweb.

[saladfingers]

No one disagrees that the ANE was steeped in honor/shame. But this does not equal that the perception of honor/shame was static and could not change in response to various events, inventions, new laws, new philosophies, etc. etc.

This very subtle, yet most significant variable is what the TIF proponents keep assuming time and time again.

I would like to hear an explanation from a TIF fan of what LGM pointed out:


Feel free to explain how the 'standards of honor' were 'much the same' no matter if you were a Roman ruler, a prostitute, a captured slave, a Jewish High Priest, a self castrated follower of Attis, a mildly retarded goat herder, a blind beggar in the street, a crippled refugee from the Jewish war, etc., etc.

[saladfingers]

A deviant cult barely worth notice is an oxymoron as far as collectivists are concerned. A deviant cult would be subject to measures mentioned earlier that were designed to shame them back into compliance. Someone making such offensive claims wouldn't be ignored, but shamed.

What would have the most impact on their decisions? :

The group that's doing the "shaming", or the newfound group of peers who are lavishing them honor for becoming a follower?

That would be a quite confusing situation indeed!

[Zeluvia]

Was there a difference between the honor/shame ideas of the Jews and the Gentiles? Because Paul spoke to Gentiles.....

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by saladfingers

No one disagrees that the ANE was steeped in honor/shame. But this does not equal that the perception of honor/shame was static and could not change in response to various events, inventions, new laws, new philosophies, etc. etc.

Not likely to happen. There was a prejudice in ancient times against that which is new (see link in the OP under Factor #4). If innovation wasn't welcome in religious matters, what makes you think it would be welcome where social perceptions are concerned?


This very subtle, yet most significant variable is what the TIF proponents keep assuming time and time again.

I would like to hear an explanation from a TIF fan of what LGM pointed out:

As you'll notice, anthropologists don't tend to refer perceptions of Jews, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, etc. They speak of them as one group with basically the same perceptions of honor and shame:


to come to understand the persons of the ancient Mediterranean world … we should be prepared to learn entirely new ways of perceiving as to assess these persons on their own terms

Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Portraits of Paul: An Archaeology of Ancient Personality, p. 4.


Since people shared a large body of knowledge, they didn't bother to state certain concepts that would be taken for granted by the reader. Group embeddedness and honor are two such concepts which permeated the world of the early Christians, and which we must understand if we hope to ever view the Scriptures in the same way as the early Christians.

http://www.tektonics.org/nutshell/honorshame.html

Though there were some differences due to religious differences (Jews saw idol worship as dishonorable while the Romans didn't), there is no evidence that preaching a deity that was crucified was not considered dishonorable. The Jews were offended by the very idea that this guy claimed divinity, but of course the religious leadership wanted to make that idea even more despicable by demanding he go through the most dishonorable death possible. Gentiles wouldn't really welcome the idea of a deity descending to human form to go through all that a human did. Crucifixion was offensive to them as well.

This of course ties into a concept in ancient times of honor as a limited good:


However, someone who gained too much honor was seen to be a threat to the community. Ancient people believed that everything that was good existed in limited quantities that had already been distributed by God. So someone who gained wealth, prestige, or honor had to be taking it from someone else around him, even if that person did not know it (Pilch and Malina, 1998, 123-124). Since position in life was seen as granted by God, for one to try to gain honor or wealth was looked down as not only selfish because he was taking from other people in the community, but as in rebellion against God as well. John the Baptist demonstrates the concept of 'limited good' with regard to Jesus' growing popularity, but accepted it, saying, "He must increase, but I must decrease," implying that for Jesus to gain honor meant that he had to lose some of his own (John 3:30).

http://www.tektonics.org/nutshell/honorshame.html

Unless there was some good evidence that this guy deserved such an honor, no one would even bother giving them consideration and would just move on to the shaming measures. As limited good was a universal concept, there's no getting around this.


What would have the most impact on their decisions? :

The group that's doing the "shaming", or the newfound group of peers who are lavishing them honor for becoming a follower?

That would be a quite confusing situation indeed!

But knowing that they're risking shame for an idea which has no real support behind it wouldn't exactly attract followers. Getting honor that wasn't considered yours wouldn't exactly attract people nor would it give outsiders a good perception of converts. Eventually, you can't really go on much longer.

Christians were persecuted precisely because they didn't conform with accepted social mores (David DeSilva Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity, p.43). Though people of the in-group would be given honor by the new group, the outsiders (potential converts) wouldn't have a good perception of them because of what Christians were doing. As you need more outsiders to become insiders, the Christians were being counter-productive unless they had a good reason to do what they were doing (which the Resurrection would give them a good reason). Telling everybody that they're wrong without backing isn't going to get you many converts, unless you could genuinely prove that you had someone who could legitimately overturn those norms. As you see, making all these outrageous claims without having a certain incontrovertible truth, would make Christianity a dead religion pretty soon.

Does anyone actually have evidence that these things were not considered shameful? The evidence we do have suggests these things were, unless you actually have evidence that such things weren't considered shameful by some, I suggest you stop beating the dead horse. Vague appeals to possible diversity that we have no evidence for (unlike the example offered above) get us nowhere.

[historic salve]

Was there a difference between the honor/shame ideas of the Jews and the Gentiles?
No. The conception of honor was pretty much the same. The only thing that would have been different is the perspective (e.g., whether Jesus' loss of honor was good or not. There was no dispute that he HAD lost all honor).

[historic salve]

It's hard for me to imagine anyone more ridiculously blinkered and wholesale ignorant of the diversity of human situations that existed in the ancient Mediterranean than the simpleton who would make the above statement.. It's statements like these that reveal your 'standard of intellect', your standard for making hilariously ignorant sweeping generalizations.
This coming from the same idiot who constantly bleets the line that God was made up by primitive "bronze age goat herders"? Yeah, you're really concerned about the "diversity" that existed in Bible times. Give me a break.

[Zeluvia]

No. The conception of honor was pretty much the same. The only thing that would have been different is the perspective (e.g., whether Jesus' loss of honor was good or not. There was no dispute that he HAD lost all honor).

So, when did we lose the culture of honor/shame? When did we become individualistic?

How was this change implemented?

Was Socrates death honorable or not?

[historic salve]

So, when did we lose the culture of honor/shame? When did we become individualistic?
Are you kidding? I can't answer that in one post. The short story is that individualism exists in degrees in every culture -- 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean, it barely existed. The places that it was most likely to exist, in fact, were among the higher classes and the philosopher-types. Today in the West, we still retain some features of shame culture, but it barely exists.

Two big markers of individualism that I would point to are the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. Especially the Enlightenment.


How was this change implemented?
The same way all social change occurs. It's not usually some kind of conscious shift.


Was Socrates death honorable or not?
I don't know enough about it to say. My initial impression is that being poisoned by hemlock and being sentenced to death just because he taught in public is not very honorable. In any case, it didn't carry the baggage the most shameful death in antiquity, crucifixion, carried.

[LGM]

This coming from the same idiot who constantly bleets the line that God was made up by primitive "bronze age goat herders"?
Yeah, you're really concerned about the "diversity" that existed in Bible times. Give me a break.

Hey...snappy comeback in defense of your ignorant, sweeping generalization.

Can you also tell me what everyone's favorite color was in 49AD?

Thanks for the laughs.

[LGM]

Are you kidding? I can't answer that in one post. The short story is that individualism exists in degrees in every culture -- 2000 years ago in the Mediterranean, it barely existed. The places that it was most likely to exist, in fact, were among the higher classes and the philosopher-types. Today in the West, we still retain some features of shame culture, but it barely exists.

Two big markers of individualism that I would point to are the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. Especially the Enlightenment.

What claptrap.

There aren't two types of culture...honor/shame and individualism.

Your first inclination was right, you CAN'T answer anything.

So stop pretending you can. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about, and neither does the OP.

Best to learn just to speak for yourself, then SLOWLY work your way up to speaking for ALL other people throughout ALL of history.

Hilarious.

[lilpixieofterror]

Hey...snappy comeback in defense of your ignorant, sweeping generalization.

:irony:


Can you also tell me what everyone's favorite color was in 49AD?

Can you tell me when you'll follow what you told DDW you'd do?

[historic salve]

There aren't two types of culture...honor/shame and individualism.
You're right. There are three types of culture.

But that's not what she asked.

[LGM]

Can you tell me when you'll follow what you told DDW you'd do?

I think you're confused lilpixie, I didn't tell DDW that you could call me 'STOOPID' and I would say 'Thank you sir! May I have another'

Can you tell me when you'll start behaving like an obedient Christian woman?

[LGM]

You're right. There are three types of culture.

:lol:

[historic salve]

:lol:
Remember to swallow. You don't want to choke on your own spittle, old man.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think you're confused lilpixie, I didn't tell DDW that you could call me 'STOOPID' and I would say 'Thank you sir! May I have another'

You said that you would 'tone it down'. Are you going to do that yet?


Can you tell me when you'll start behaving like an obedient Christian woman?

:irony:

And this is the same guy who says, "Hey...snappy comeback in defense of your ignorant, sweeping generalization." And again he exposes how big of a hypocrite he is. :lol:

[Zeluvia]

You're right. There are three types of culture.

But that's not what she asked.

What is the third type of culture?

What determines what type of culture you are?

The same thing that determines what religion you are?

Now, John the Baptist had a large following. Was having your head cut off by Herod honorable or shameful?

If you are "disenfranchised" from the "society" do you still operate by the same honor/shame rules?

[historic salve]

What is the third type of culture?
Look it up.


What determines what type of culture you are?

The same thing that determines what religion you are?
If you're looking for "geography," yes then no, respectively. :lol:


Now, John the Baptist had a large following. Was having your head cut off by Herod honorable or shameful?
Take a guess.


If you are "disenfranchised" from the "society" do you still operate by the same honor/shame rules?
I'm going to simplify this for you (I wouldn't want your little brain to overheat) and say yes.

[Carpedm9587]

PART I (sorry - I don't have the time to edit it down).


Without the Resurrection, there wasn't a real reason to believe. It would just be a promise of eternal life wrapped up in a much more dishonorable package.

So you assume your conclusion. :shrug:

It had to be true or they wouldn't have believed it. That's not much of an argument.


Read David DeSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity. According to him, that which was honorable was of prime importance to the ancients. Most relevant to this is:

David DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity, p. 24.

Maybe you should consider what "prominent goad" means. That it influences is without question. That it determines is. That it determines for all members of a given population, or even most, is. You seem to want to narrow the discussion to one source of influence: honor/shame. When anything else comes along, it gets dismissed as "implausible" in the shadow of your honor/shame focus. I don't expect you to change that behavior, but it is unconvincing.


Why don't you try actually proving those assumptions wrong. Your argument too rests upon assumptions. These are:


The Resurrection isn't necessarily the best explanation
The culture wasn't honor-and-shame
That we can't know how the ancients would have perceived things (despite all scholars in this field have said)


and so on.

Assuming you are using the term "necessarily" the same way it is used in philosophy, I have no problem with the first assumption. I can think of no explanation that is "necessarily" the best explanation. I prefer to take the approach of looking at all explanations and seeing which ones are possible. Then, with whatever evidence is in play, seek to determine if I can give any of them more weight than any other. The evidence does not support this latter step, which is essentially my point.

I also did not say the culture did not involve an honor-shame component. I am telling you that, IMO, you are over-emphasizing one element to substantiate a point. Your emphasis is not warranted by the available evidence.

I also do not assume the last item on your list. I didn't say we can't. If we have adequate evidence, we can come to a point of reasonable certainty. "Beyond a reasonable doubt," if you will. However, we lack the evidence to support that level of confidence. You (and many like you) seek to make definitive statements on scant evidence.


Anyone can point out assumptions, it's proving those wrong that is the real exercise.

This may be your approach - but it is not mine. If I make an assumption that is unsupported, and someone calls me on it, I assume I need to substantiate my assumption or I am not going to convince my audience. I don't expect people out there to set out to prove every one of my assumptions false. It is enough for them to simply point out they ARE assumptions and have not been supported.

If you are looking for me to prove all of your assumptions false, you're going to be a tad frustrated. I would consider that a waste of time. You can pile on assumptions faster than I can possibly disprove them.


What causes you to think that success was minimal. The day they first evangelized, there were 3,000 converts. Unless that's all they had (probably not a safe assumption), I wouldn't say the success in that culture was minimal until Paul came around (which wasn't that much later). But Paul taking it to other cultures wouldn't really help either as basic concepts of honor-and-shame were universal at the time. If you have issue with that statement, stop taking it up with me and take it up with the scholars telling them how they don't really know anything and they're wasting their time studying.

Unless you have another source, your 3,000 converts are from a story documented by the community itself in the bible. There is zero corroborating evidence of that phenomenon. My reason for thinking initial success was minimal is the lack of any references to a sea-change in religious belief systems in that area at that time. It is only decades later that we get vague references to the young cult and the growing level of concern/annoyance they seem to be at the root of. They are on no one's radar scope but their own, as far as we can tell. No writings. No architecture. No archeological evidence of their spread from any source other than their own writings about themselves - which I consider an uncorroborated and subjective source.


Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh, Jerome Neyrey, John Pilch, and David DeSilva do not qualify as theologians. Know your stuff before you start throwing out insults about how only theologians do such and such and are not real scholars. Telling them that they can't know anything about what they're studying is what I'm referring to.

John Pilch has a PhD in Theology (and an MA in Theology and a BA in Philosophy) and is a member of the Theology Department at Georgetown University.

Bruce Malina is on faculty in the Theology department at Creighton University.

Richard Rohrbaugh did his studies at Sterling College and San Francisco Theological Seminary - both theology schools. Both he and Malina have S.T.D.s (I will stifle my amusement at THAT acronym, I'm sure they have a plethora of inside jokes about that already).

And what a surprise, Neyrey is a Jesuit with degrees in theology from Regis and Weston (to name a few).

I also did not say they were not real scholars. They are theologians dabbling in history. They bring to their study their pre-existing religious bias, and then tend to use the facts to support the bias. I see it over and over again. A historian should approach history from the perspective of "what does the evidence tell us" not "what does the evidence tell us about the god we already believe lived and died?"

This is the problem I find in book after book I read that purports to be an apologetic for Christianity: it starts with the assumption that Christianity is true and then shows how the evidence can be interpreted to support that view. In that process, any other possible interpretation is discarded.

[QUOTE=TolkienFan;2291059]Well good, you have that much going for you. I was just saying that the OP was actually examining whether the Christ-myth thesis explains how Christianity came about (though it's turned into an argument about the argument itself). As you don't think that the Christ-myth idea has sufficient backing, you would agree with that much of the OP. This discussion wasn't meant to be all that open-ended.

I'd accept another explanation if it is plausible and explains all the data better than the idea of the Resurrection. I'd advise that you don't merely assume obstinacy on my part. Would you like me assuming that you're just another fundy atheist that doesn't care what people say but just trolls around making inane remarks? Of course not, nor do I assume that about you.

As best I can, I am restricting my responses to your actual comments, not to what others might say or think about you, or what others who share the title "Christian" may say or do. It is your comments and assumptions I find unsubstantiated. However, I do acknowledge that I noted I have seen this pattern in others, and have no basis for thinking it will change in this discussion.

Perhaps you will show me to be wrong in that.


This was based off the article on Holding's site, I offered links to that site for substantiation. Though I have actually provided some of what's there in this thread. If I didn't expect you to follow the links, I'd be up here basically plagiarizing trying to re-invent the wheel. Besides my substantiation, as well as Holding's, comes from the scholars who've studied the field and know about the various factors in that article.

I've read holdings article before. I find it as lacking in your presentation as I did in my reading, for the reasons I have already cited. It is essentially based upon flawed assumptions that cannot be substantiated - only asserted.


You claim that there are numerous explanations but you offer no substantiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that hypocrisy? You want to say there are numerous explanations, offer a few and we'll examine them and see if they explain the data as well. Once again, you're making the assumption that I'll simply dismiss any alternative explanation a priori. What in the world makes you think that? Do you think I'm simply uncritical and you are simply because I'm Christian and you're not?

The alternatives are all over this board, TF. Some have been offered by me, some by others. The discussion then proceeds along predictable lines: because none of these alternatives can be proven, they are dismissed. Or they are quickly labeled "implausible." I have little or no desire to go back around that horn yet again. If you wish to label that preference "hypocrisy," then feel free to do so. You wouldn't be the first, nor will you be the last.

I responded for no other reason that to point out that your argument is based upon assumptions you cannot substantiate - ergo it fails. That does not prove Christianity wrong. It simply means you have failed to prove it to be correct - or even "the most likely explanation," for all of the reasons I have already cited.

I am not going to attempt to support or prove an alternative explanation when my position is that the evidence is not adequate to make any definitive statements about what happened.


Well, offer substantiation of that accusation. Offer a legitimate, plausible explanation that properly explains the data we have.

No - for the reasons I have cited. When your position is that "the game is rigged," you don't make the point by playing the game.


It is true. I don't want to be a part of something that's not true. If it can be demonstrated that what I'm a part of at least doesn't contain the essential truths that it claims to, I would be willing to leave, and I'm pretty sure I speak for every other Christian on this board when I say that.

Not every other. Some, most definitely. But a significant percentage of the Christians here will abandon even common sense to hold to their beliefs, and have said as much. If you are not of that ilk, more power to you. That would make you part of a fairly respectable segment of the forum, IMO.


Well, you could always offer something you think explains the data better. In this matter, it doesn't really matter what the perspective is, it matters what actually is.

No - for the reasons I have already cited. The exercise is pointless.


So far, I have yet to see an adequate alternative explanation brought to the fore that actually deals with the data. If there are so many, it couldn't hurt to provide one right? Bring it up so that we may examine it.

Same response.


It's supported by what we know of the social perceptions of the day. If you want to say it's not enough to actually say anything about their social perceptions, take it up with the scholars who have actually written books on them.

No thanks.


But the most essential truth claim behind Christianity is the Resurrection. If that truth claim is false, there isn't really anything left. But I guess it's my fault for not being more accurate in my statement. What I meant was that if it didn't at least have the truth of the Resurrection behind it, it couldn't have survived. More trivial claims of truth don't matter if the Resurrection is false. That is the truth I was referring to.

I find that Christians, and many other religiously inclined individuals, tend to this kind of black/white thinking. It's somewhat foreign to me. My wife is Christian. There are many aspects of the Christian faith she finds resonance with. She, and many of those she interacts with, don't necessarily believe there was a resurrection, nor do they necessarily believe Jesus was god, or that his death was a "plan of salvation." They find many aspects of that belief system problematic in the extreme. But elements of the basic message attributed to Jesus resonate with them, as it does with many (myself included).

I doubt that was true of the people of the early church, however. For them, I suspect the resurrection was more tangible/real and it seems they did believe it actually occurred, as best we can tell. So what we know is they believed it. What we don't know is why.


Well, that's sad.

I agree. A belief system should not be based on unsubstantiated assumptions.


What reason do you have to doubt the data we do have? By this same logic, I could say Josephus claims the Jews were in a war with the Romans and he claimed that Jerusalem was attacked and that there was much bloodshed in the city, but I have no reason to believe him. Do you really think that there was no Jewish War or that Jerusalem wasn't attacked? Or would you rather rely on what Josephus had to say because we don't have a reason to doubt him? It's the same with what is claimed in the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

Actually, the historical claims of the gospels I have little problem with. I don't hold them as "necessarily true" any more than I do for any historical claim. I hold them in much the same light as Josephus' claims or many of the other historical claims made for that period and the periods after. I have no reason to question Josephus claims about the Jerusalem attack. The event fits the historical timeline. The event is believable (e.g., attacks, wars, bloodshed, etc. were commonplace in that era and others). Can I tell you I know without doubt that it unfolded as Josephus described? Of course not. But his testimony takes me beyond "reasonable doubt" until (and if) new evidence comes along.

There are other claims in the NT that are not of this ilk. They are unsubstantiated. They run counter to everyday experience. They appear in other belief systems where they are discounted. There is a body of extra-scriptural evidence that suggests the stories are stories of faith - not stories of fact or history.


How are they unsubstantiated if we have historical records which make such claims? What are you expecting? A birth certificate that says, "Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, though born of a virgin, was born in Bethlehem, but raised in Nazareth in the region of Galilee,"? Skeptics could just as easily claim that such a thing was forged. By this logic, we would be doubting everything written in historical texts.

I have no expectations. We have what evidence we have. Based on that evidence we can come to some conclusions - and we cannot come to others. No more - no less.


Nature of the claims? What is the nature of the claims of where he hailed from and how he died that makes the Gospel reportings unreliable?

The claims that he was a god, was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was resurrected and returned to heaven are not supported claims. They exist in only one place: the documents of the community reporting them. They run counter to everyday experience. They are similar to other claims that are immediately dismissed in other faiths. There is not sufficient evidence to accept them as true, IMO.


Experience with parallel claims? What are you saying? Because X was wrong in situation A, Y must also be wrong in situation B?

"Must" is too strong a word. However, if one notes that every known claim of Type X has been shown to be a fraud or misunderstanding, and someone makes a claim of Type X, I will hold them to a higher standard of support for their claim. To do otherwise is to be gullible. Experience has shown us that these claims tend to be false.


Knowledge of this world? Is this more of that, I don't believe in miracles because I haven't seen one personally?

That is part of it. There is also the fact that every miracle I have investigated to any degree has been shown to be a fraud or a misunderstanding. There is also the occurrence of parallel claims in other belief systems that tend to be rejected by everyone outside that belief system. There is my knowledge of science and the cosmos. All of this is evidence to be considered. I don't set it aside because someone wants me to.


As I've said before, let's see what explanation apart from the Resurrection sufficiently explains the data.

No.

(continued)

[Carpedm9587]

PART II


So too have the Gospels been deemed reliable by many historians because they have used such criteria. Those who have said the Gospels are unreliable have been refuted according to these criteria. It matters not whether there's dissent, but if that dissent is well-founded.

No. The historically verifiable elements have been substantiated in many respects. For example, there hundreds of points in Acts that have been historically verified: names of cities, personages, geographic details, cultural details, etc. The verification of some points does not render all of the text verified. And that is especially true of claims that differ in kind. "Normal" historical claims are one thing - unverified claims of the supernatural are another altogether.


But really, the whole thing has nothing to do with your earlier implicit claim that the sources we have are not contemporary. As such, you have been shown that we have sources that date within the same timeframe as these references. The reliability of the references is another matter. This was only meant to address the implicit claim that we don't have "contemporary sources".

No. Contemporary sources is only one thing historians look for. Historical verification is a complex art/science that involves many elements. If there are no authenticated contemporary sources, the claim is weaker than it would be if there were. That does not mean the claim is disproven. Indeed, a claim without contemporary sources can be stronger than one with them if other factors are stronger. These discussions often reduce to isolating one thing out of a larger argument - which you seem inclined to do.

I look at the broader fabric: the whole picture. Not just a single issue.


Why exactly would you say that? Oral transmission was considered preferable to the ancients who were much more illiterate than not. According to Samuel Byrskog:

Samuel Byrskog, Story as History, p. 116

Also, Gregory A. Boyd notes the acknowledgment of the reliability of ancient oral transmission:

Gregory A. Boyd, Cynic Sage or the Son of God?, p. 121-2.

But even if we disregard ancient memory capacity, N.T. Wright says this:

N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 123.

For more on oral transmission, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html)

Ok - I've looked at all of these (at one time or another). Now try this challenge: look for the general historical community's position on oral tradition OUTSIDE of Christian apologetics. What do non-partisan historians say about the accuracy of oral tradition within societies. I think you will find that they will say that cultures that pass information in this way become adept at doing so, but that variations arise as a result of the oral tradition.

Your sources are biased, TF. They have a vested interest in nailing down the accuracy of oral tradition. They are not mainstream historians - they are Christian historians with an agenda. Note that I am not asking you to read historians who are anti-Christian. I am asking you to go research oral traditions in non-religious contexts. They exist.


Okay then. But of course, the thing is not pointing out assumptions, but proving them wrong.

I have no intention of taking on that task. You are free to make all of the assumptions you wish. I have a full time job and no desire to spend my free time disproving the sea of assumptions you can generate. If you are comfortable with your assumptions, then by all means keep them. I am merely telling you why they do not convince me: you have not substantiated them.


Once again implicitly claiming that the scholars who study this and have written books on ancient perceptions are wasting their time.

But the question is, how did Christianity even maintained sufficient visibility with all the factors against it.

There are numerous scenarios that have been offered, TF. Some of them even by Christians. Meh Gerbil proposed one some time ago that was borderline brilliant. Completely unprovable, mind you, but brilliantly wove together the elements of information at hand with a narrative that explained them. Did it happen that way? Who knows. Could it have? Absolutely. The problem is, there are many such scenarios that range from intentional deception to gradual mob motion. You can't eliminate them. You can only wave them away as "implausible."


You're still missing the point. It's not as if these things weren't offered in cults of the day. The thing is that it was in a much more offensive and dishonorable package with Christianity. Charismatic preachers aren't going to do you much good when you have so much offensive about your movement. Perhaps the closest parallel I can think of at this point (though it doesn't have as many complex factors) is a charismatic preacher trying to tell us about how pedophilia is not only not wrong, but is preferable to do.

Well, reasons back then kind of were narrower because of all the things that would be considered offensive about it that would not be considered so offensive in today's individualist American culture (as I don't know much about conversions abroad, I can't say much about them).

No, TF. I'm not missing the point. Christianity was not just shame-based. The message is a powerful one. The god of all creation takes a personal interest in you, saved you by the death of his son, frees you from all sin if you accept him, promises eternal reward for fidelity. There will be some part of the population for which such a theme resonates. IT will attract followers. Almost every belief system does. But when that message is coupled with highly dynamic and powerful leadership - with a charismatic leader (like Paul and other early church leaders), then what begins as a minor cult can begin to swell. We see it throughout history. Why did people come? Why did some set aside their shame? Why did some ignore the persecution (both mild and horrendous)?

The number of variables at play is immense. That you assume the only plausible explanation is "it was true" is faulty. It ignores all of the other motivations people have for believing what they believe. It tries to reduce it to black and white. The truth is, quite likely, far more complex. Each came for his/her own reasons. There were likely trends, and commonalities. But your attempt to nail it down to a single motivating factor: it was true - fails before it starts.


Once again, the question is if anything in that huge range sufficiently accounts for all the data like the Resurrection does. It's one thing to see a group act seemingly irrationally, it's another to actually find an explanation as to why that was.

And you do not have such an explanation. You have an unsupported assertion.


Yet again, the question is are those assumptions well-founded? It's not about whether I'm making assumptions or not, as everybody does.

I have told you why I think they are not. The rest I leave to you.


But if they have no reason to assume there's any real truth behind that statement, wouldn't it be much, much easier for them to just drop it? You really think that such a large group of people would be willing to go through persecution of such a terrible nature simply because someone told them that this offensive religion promises eternal life (which is what every religion did). Do you really think they would have gotten a rush out of persecution that could have been considered worse than death?

Who said they had no reason, TF? You continue to grasp to a binary vision and to fail to separate out the truth of what they believed from their ability to believe it. Why people accept something as true is all over the map. The actual truth of the proposition may or may not be independent of the belief in that truth.


Again, you seem to think that just making assumptions makes an argument suspect. It's a question of if there's a good reason to make assumptions rather than if assumptions should be made (as everybody makes them at some point about something). This whole time you've been assuming that the Resurrection is not the most plausible idea. It's no big deal to point out assumptions.

You have yet to demonstrate against the scholars that these things they observe about ancient social perceptions are not true. For people to so extremely go against social perceptions and to see it as nothing unusual for people to adhere to borders on insanity. Whatever problems you have about ideas of ancient perception, I suggest you take it up with the scholars.

No - I assume making unsupported assumptions does nothing to demonstrate that the conclusion is true. When your assumptions are unsupported, then you have said nothing about the truth of your conclusion. You also continue to complain that I have pointed this out and yet not provided support for the assumptions - which leaves you right where you started.

As I said - you can either support the assumptions and perhaps make your case, or you can not support them in which case your case is not made and I will remain unconvinced. If that is of no concern to you, and if you are comfortable basing beliefs on assumptions you cannot support, then we're done. There is nothing left to be said.


At the very least, Christianity would have been conceived of as a grossly deviant group that desired to overturn social mores without a good reason to do so. As the Pharisees were so very opposed to Christ, you don't think they'd do anything they could to discredit the movement which stemmed from him?

Again - the degree of opposition by the Pharisees to Jesus of Nazareth is something we know only from the testimony of the community itself. We have no corroborating evidence from the Judaic record, or the local communities or legal system. The perception of this cult, then, is also something you are assuming. It's probably not a bad assumption: they did have a unique and somewhat revolutionary message. New cults, like those, are often rejected locally. That would certainly dovetail with the movement of the cult out into gentile circles, and outside the core Judaic influence. And you will note, that is where this cult saw its greatest success, if we can believe the record we have.


How is it a questionable source? Do you have another source on the issue which makes it questionable?

I've already responded to this.


A deviant cult barely worth notice is an oxymoron as far as collectivists are concerned. A deviant cult would be subject to measures mentioned earlier that were designed to shame them back into compliance. Someone making such offensive claims wouldn't be ignored, but shamed.

TF, deviant cults have popped up and disappeared under the global radar scope throughout history. They show up in towns and fade, known only by the local townspeople. They may show up in a state or country and disappear, noted only by the local state or country. And the degree of attention they receive relates to the degree of their deviance. Christians weren't killing people. They weren't raping children. They were analogous to the flower children of the period (yes, that's a gross oversimplification). They preached peace - turn the other cheek - fidelity to god. I think your sense of their deviance is a little overblown.


But the eyewitnesses themselves didn't have to write something. Their testimony could be reported by someone else. So a guy who writes a book that reports what eyewitnesses saw, is not featuring eyewitness testimony? Unless you have good reason to doubt what the reporter says about eyewitness testimony, the whole objection is nonsensical.

It is to you, of course, because to eliminate the "eyewitness" testimony would undermine what you want to claim. I, on the other hand, have no such agenda. I know we have no eyewitness testimony to many things in history. That includes the events of the gospels. There is no first-hand account by any witness of these events anywhere in the record.


The Gospels! What's so hard to understand about that? Even if the eyewitnesses themselves didn't write at least two of the Gospels (Matthew and John), what reason do we have to assume that none of the Gospels report eyewitness testimony?

By definition, none of them are known to be eyewitness accounts. They are, at best, reportings someone else made of something an eyewitness said. But given that we don't even have a reliable track of biblical authorship, we don't even know that.


If you're going to ignore what I say, why should I even bother? There's substantiation in the links as well as my own posts. Why don't you actually deal with it instead of dismissing it?

I have seen no substantiation to the points I have outlined, TF: that you are assuming you can know the motivations of a people based on extremely thin evidence and the success of a community.


I have the evidence that the scholars of the field have obtained. If you don't think that's sufficient, take it up with them. The potential variable are vast, the thing is, we're actually trying to determine what explanation best explains all the data.

As you wish, TF. Perhaps we are done here. I for one have found the claims you have made very unconvincing - as I did when I first read the Holding article.


I think I might have just upset the balance of Tweb.

If that's a reference to the length of your post - I don't think so. Others have already exceeded this by some amount. :smile:

Michel

P.S. One final note. I recognize in your arguments themes I have seen before in discussions with Crystal, MM, and a small cadre of people who have (IMO) been taken in by the faulty logic of Holding’s arguments. My experience is that discussions with them goes in circles and goes off on endless unrelated tangents. Hopefully this is different, but I have to admit I have my doubts about the benefits of continuing this discussion. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether or not you wish to continue.

[saladfingers]

Hey Carpe,

do you have the link to Meh Gerbils theory on this?

ThankS!

[John Powell]

CARPEDM (to TokienFan):
I also did not say they were not real scholars. They are theologians dabbling in history. They bring to their study their pre-existing religious bias, and then tend to use the facts to support the bias. I see it over and over again. A historian should approach history from the perspective of "what does the evidence tell us" not "what does the evidence tell us about the god we already believe lived and died?"


POWELL:
Good points in your post. I wish to emphasize that the evidence is colored by our bias, so although what I'm going to say does not weaken considerably your point, it's more of a clarification. The scholar should approach history from the perspective of "what does the evidence tell us when making the standard assumptions" (like that the Earth is real, Rome was real, and so on). For example, "what does the evidence tell us about the ancient world that we already believe existed." It's NOT that the error of the overly biased historian (eg. the historian who is a devoted Christian) is to make assumptions or to view the evidence in light of some theory. Any historian must do that in order for the stuff to count as evidence. What's wrong, unscholarly, is to do that initially in light of a CONTROVERSIAL theory. The controversial theory should be proposed to explain the evidence perhaps AFTER the evidence has been looked at using the NON CONTROVERSIAL assumptions, say, if the standard assumptions don't work.

The principle of "Don't fix what isn't broken" applied to scholarship:

Don't invoke a novel explanation until the traditional explanation doesn't work.

John Powell

[LGM]

The amusing and ironic thing about the fallacious special pleading of Holding's ridiculous 'Impossible Faith' argument, is that the same alleged quote of Tacitus, that he trots out to 'prove' that Jesus was a historical figure, REFUTES this argument quite nicely.

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

- Tacitus

Holding goes on to say in one of his screeds:

"A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus"

Well, I think we should give this citation the high regard it deserves!

Imagine that! In the capital of the alleged, incredibly consistent 'honor/shame' society, where everyone marches in lockstep, and nothing SHAMEFUL, could ever become POPULAR...here we have the most famous historian of that period, telling us how ALL THINGS hideous and shameful, from all over the world, become popular in Rome.

Dang...imagine that! And just when you thought it couldn't get more hideous and shameful than a self castrating savior god, along comes another immortal son of god, who vountarily commits faux suicide, and pretends to be dead for a couple of days, then rises, and flies off the planet in a big hurry, all in order to save the faithful believers in his various cults.

Oh my...it will be amusing to watch the Holding wannabes deal with this one.

:popcorn:

[Zeluvia]

Look it up.


If you're looking for "geography," yes then no, respectively. :lol:


Take a guess.


I'm going to simplify this for you (I wouldn't want your little brain to overheat) and say yes.

Are you a sociologist or an anthropologist?

I think this whole honor/shame thing needs more research = )

[LGM]

Are you a sociologist or an anthropologist?

No...but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once.

[jwarrend]

I haven't read TIF in book form but I skimmed through the material at the Tektonics website a few years back when I was participating in a debate/discussion on the Christ myth hypothesis. I don't necessarily want to defend the thesis of the OP so much as to re-emphasize an epistemological principle on which I think it rests.

In a separate book I just read, ("Reason for the Hope Within") a Christian philosopher named Robin Collins, in an essay on the anthropic principle, introduces a principle that he refers to as the "Prime Principle of Confirmation". I wasn't familiar with this principle previously, though its logic makes intuitive sense. The idea is roughly this: say we are trying to decide between Explanatory Framework A and Explanatory Framework B. If observation X would be likely to be observed under framework A, and unlikely to be observed under framework B, then the fact that we do observe X counts as evidence that A is more likely to be true than B.

As a simple example, suppose that we are trying to explain "why did the cookie disappear from my desk?", and we are competing between explanation A, "Jim stole the cookie" and explanation B, "The cookie spontaneously combusted". If I make an observation X, namely, that there is a trail of cookie crumbs leading from my desk to Jim's, then by the prime principle of confirmation, because X is likely to be observed if A is true but unlikely to be observed if B is the true explanation, then the fact that I observe X means that it's more likely that Jim stole the cookie than that the cookie combusted. Of course this is a silly and imperfect example but it illustrates the general point.

Now the point I want to make is that I think the Impossible Faith argument is to some extent structured in the same way. Skeptics often complain that Lewis' famous "trilemma" is a faulty argument because there are other possibilities that it excludes from consideration (eg, "the authors fabricated the accounts about Jesus", etc), but this misses the point that the Trilemma takes as an input several background assumptions and shows that, given such assumptions, the conclusion it draws is the most reasonable one. It's similar here. I don't read the Impossible Faith as seeking to establish proof positive that Jesus really lived and did exactly what He is reported to have done, because of course you can't argue from "this is the ordinary pattern of things like X" and end up with "and therefore, X must have happened in that exact way", because of course we know that people aren't always monolithic or completely predictable. What I think it is purporting to show, however, is that the characteristics of Christian faith -- the beliefs that the early church affirmed -- are likely to have been the sorts of doctrinal positions that would have been affirmed were Christianity true, and not likely to have been the sorts of things that would have been affirmed were Christianity false. For example, you wouldn't expect someone who was making up a religion to have its central deity arrive on earth in lowly estate, and so Jesus' birth narrative is unlikely to be part of the story were Christianity false (or so the Impossible Faith hypothesis asserts, of course), but it is likely to be part of the story if Christianity is true, and therefore, the fact the Gospels report Jesus' birth as having been humble and lowly counts more strongly as evidence that Christianity is true over and against the alternative explanation that it was fabricated.

It must therefore be recognized that the argument shouldn't be viewed as a proof unto itself, but rather, that by leveraging the prime principle, it helps us to filter which explanation is more likely given (a) what observations we'd expect under the various possible explanatory frameworks and (b) what observations we actually make (ie, what elements do the stories contain?) The argument, to be successful, obviously rests very, very heavily on a careful and proper handling of (a) -- we must be able to have very good confidence in the level of likelihood we can assign to whether a given story element would be expected under each candidate explanatory framework. I assume that the text of the Impossible Faith sets out to do just this based on its author's survey of scholarship of the NT era. I think it's certainly open for debate whether the author's conclusions are accurately drawn, but what I don't think is sufficient is to offer nothing more than idle counter-speculation -- "people believe all sorts of weird things, so why not [this counter-intuitive belief in Scripture], too?" Instead, the appropriate rebuttal is to show that the prime principle cannot be adequately invoked here -- that the observation in question is not substantially more likely to have been observed under one of the candidate explanatory frameworks than another -- that, eg, it's just as likely that a fabricator would have placed Jesus in Galilee as that an accurate historian would have done so.

An alternative approach would be to question the prime principle itself, and to claim that it is illegitimate as an epistemological filter for truth. I certainly could come up with some complaints with the principle, because in my view, any observation can be reconciled with any explanatory framework, and the question becomes entirely a matter of which framework accomodates a given observation more economically and with less necessity to adopt additional assumptions. But there is a sense in which the prime principle does this, in that it selects one particular standard for economy, and in that sense I think it does have its use.

Best,

-Jeff

[Zeluvia]

Well, this is my little brain thinking...

The greeks, according to Dodd, had already been wrestling with individual responsibility and guilt vs collectivist shame prior to Jesus.

Jesus preached a life free of shame, and one of a relationship with god, who judged all people on their actions and their hearts, which was in conflict with the honor/shame ideas, Jesus was an individualist.

Since Freud identified guilt as a higher stage of ego development than shame, the followers of Jesus would have been individualists or people that for whatever reason were opted out of the shame culture. Therefore, his death would not be shameful to them, but the striking statement of an individual willing to die for his beliefs.

All cultures, even ours, have honor/shame and guilt mixed to one degree or another. The way we treat our politicians, and the way gangs and high schools operate is based on honor/shame.

So, early christians were not only following Jesus, they were following an individualistic ideal, making the honor/shame point moot. This makes sense in the situation we have in the first century, where the mobility of people was increasing, the power of the state and law was growing, and cultural interaction was increasing, all of which reduce the effects of honor/shame cultures.

[LGM]

I haven't read TIF in book form but I skimmed through the material at the Tektonics website a few years back when I was participating in a debate/discussion on the Christ myth hypothesis. I don't necessarily want to defend the thesis of the OP so much as to re-emphasize an epistemological principle on which I think it rests.

In a separate book I just read, ("Reason for the Hope Within") a Christian philosopher named Robin Collins, in an essay on the anthropic principle, introduces a principle that he refers to as the "Prime Principle of Confirmation". I wasn't familiar with this principle previously, though its logic makes intuitive sense. The idea is roughly this: say we are trying to decide between Explanatory Framework A and Explanatory Framework B. If observation X would be likely to be observed under framework A, and unlikely to be observed under framework B, then the fact that we do observe X counts as evidence that A is more likely to be true than B.

As a simple example, suppose that we are trying to explain "why did the cookie disappear from my desk?", and we are competing between explanation A, "Jim stole the cookie" and explanation B, "The cookie spontaneously combusted". If I make an observation X, namely, that there is a trail of cookie crumbs leading from my desk to Jim's, then by the prime principle of confirmation, because X is likely to be observed if A is true but unlikely to be observed if B is the true explanation, then the fact that I observe X means that it's more likely that Jim stole the cookie than that the cookie combusted. Of course this is a silly and imperfect example but it illustrates the general point.


A better example would be, "I'm given an ancient book by an unknown author that contains a narrative which describes all manner of unbelievable, supernatural events, many of which contain motifs that fulfill some prophesies of older Jewish scriptures. According to the anonymous story, these supernatural events were allegedly witnessed by countless literate people, of different cultures and religions, in a very cosmopolitan setting, yet no historian of that era even mentions them. Not a one. Then, after this first account anonymous account appears, apparently some other people read it, copy it, and expand on it, and begin to claim it is true.

What is the most likely explanation?

That the stories in the original anonymous narratives are completely fictional or allegorical and that people who had no way of confirming them, started to believe in them erroneously.



Now the point I want to make is that I think the Impossible Faith argument is to some extent structured in the same way.

No. It's not. The most likely explanation for people starting a religious cult that draws on existing gods and other cultural religous ideas, is because they desire the fame, respect and importance that goes with being a religious leader of something new and (slightly) different.

The history of religion, and now Christianity, is littered with these types of sects.

The simple explanation is always the same. Saul of Tarsus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Reverend Moon, L. Ron Hubbard are all either full of crap or delusional.



Skeptics often complain that Lewis' famous "trilemma" is a faulty argument because there are other possibilities that it excludes from consideration (eg, "the authors fabricated the accounts about Jesus", etc), but this misses the point that the Trilemma takes as an input several background assumptions and shows that, given such assumptions, the conclusion it draws is the most reasonable one.

Yep. The people who claim they speak for gods are liars and lunatics.

The same conclusion fits every religion.

It's amazingly consistent. That's why atheism is the most consistent philosophy with people who make claims about their knowledge of gods and supernatural events.



It's similar here. I don't read the Impossible Faith as seeking to establish proof positive that Jesus really lived and did exactly what He is reported to have done, because of course you can't argue from "this is the ordinary pattern of things like X" and end up with "and therefore, X must have happened in that exact way", because of course we know that people aren't always monolithic or completely predictable.

People make up stories. People lie. People embellish someone else's lies. It's well documented and the BEST explanation for Christianity, and all other revealed religions that claim to have some special knowledge only known or seen by a handful of gnostics.



What I think it is purporting to show, however, is that the characteristics of Christian faith -- the beliefs that the early church affirmed -- are likely to have been the sorts of doctrinal positions that would have been affirmed were Christianity true, and not likely to have been the sorts of things that would have been affirmed were Christianity false.

Sorry. In the first few centuries of what's now known as Christianity, there were countless different sects and cults with widely disparate beliefs and Christologies.

Just what you would expect from a fragmented collection of cults based on a failed messianic/apocalyptic message that never came true.

There was no orthodox Christian doctrine until it was established via the patronage and persecution of the Roman Empire.

Once that Empire dwindled, countless cults with various conflicting theologies, scriptures, christologies, and beliefs sprang up again.

Christianity doesn't point to a consistent god or holy spirit working to unite people. It points to an incoherent mess of beliefs that relies on a foundation document, Genesis, which has been shown to be completely false.



For example, you wouldn't expect someone who was making up a religion to have its central deity arrive on earth in lowly estate, and so Jesus' birth narrative is unlikely to be part of the story were Christianity false

Doesn't really matter what YOUR god would be. Feel free to make up your own deity. Remember create one you think your followers will like.

You might also not make up a savior god who went crazy and castrated himself by a pine tree.
But people believed it.

You might also not make up a story about a spaceship waiting behind a comet to take you to heaven after you commit suicide. But people believed it.

You might also not believe that some whack job in Waco is the second coming of Jesus. But people believed it.

Delusional, emotional people believe whatever they want to believe, especially if it is reinforced in a cult setting by charismatic leaders. It's well documented.

People are gullible, especially religious people.




(or so the Impossible Faith hypothesis asserts, of course), but it is likely to be part of the story if Christianity is true, and therefore, the fact the Gospels report Jesus' birth as having been humble and lowly counts more strongly as evidence that Christianity is true over and against the alternative explanation that it was fabricated.

Please.

Jesus being born to some poor peasant and his wife in the sticks of Galilee is a LOWLY birth.

God impregnating a virgin, to fulfill some mistranslated Jewish prophecy, and being attended to by a magical star, and Magi, and angels, and shepherds...is HARDLY a lowly birth. The fact the little tike struck such FEAR into the heart of the Roman Ruler, he had to kill every baby in the area, also shows that not only was he not lowly, he was powerful, and didn't mind a bunch of babies being killed instead of him.

The original anonymous gospel doesn't contain this birth narrative, and it's OBVIOUS that it's a complete invention, a myth that never happened. But here you are BELIEVING it. Why? Because you've been taught to. You put on the little skit every year in your church's Christmas pageant.

It's ridiculous. No credible historian gives it any credence as the most 'likely' scenario to explain the 'story'

Nope. The trillema is really a dillema. Do you idolize everything in the bible as something that HAS to be true? Like C.S. Lewis? Or are you skeptical of religious myths filled with completely unsupported supernatural events?



It must therefore be recognized that the argument shouldn't be viewed as a proof unto itself, but rather, that by leveraging the prime principle, it helps us to filter which explanation is more likely given (a) what observations we'd expect under the various possible explanatory frameworks and (b) what observations we actually make (ie, what elements do the stories contain?)

Right.

We expect religious cult leaders and anonymous storytellers to make stuff up and lie and claim they speak for gods.

And that's exactly what they did. From Genesis, thru Exodus, thru Jonah, onto Mark, and it ends with Revelation.

Made up stories that the gullible and indoctrinated believe, and the skeptical and critical thinkers reject.

[LGM]

All cultures, even ours, have honor/shame and guilt mixed to one degree or another.

Correct. Unfortunately, those who can't deal with a complex world, need to oversimplify it.

[element771]

No. It's not. The most likely explanation for people starting a religious cult that draws on existing gods and other cultural religous ideas, is because they desire the fame, respect and importance that goes with being a religious leader of something new and (slightly) different.



Don't forget leaving your home to spread this "made up" cult only to be martyred and/or persecuted for your trouble.

Maybe you should start up your own cult. It sounds like a lot of fun.

[LGM]

Don't forget leaving your home to spread this "made up" cult only to be martyred and/or persecuted for your trouble.

Yep. Ask the folks who followed Jim Jones to his remote South America compound and drank the koolaid.

And don't forget the crazy Islamic suicide bombers...they obviously wouldn't have joined up unless the angel Gabriel REALLY, REALLY dictated the Koran to Mohammed.

And obviously David Koresh was the second coming, and the ATF killed Jesus this time, instead of the Jews/Romans.

Yep...people believe crazy stuff. I'd estimate that maybe 10-20 percent of humanity is sane.


Maybe you should start up your own cult. It sounds like a lot of fun.

No thanks. I'm not crazy enough.

[element771]

Yep. Ask the folks who followed Jim Jones to his remote South America compound and drank the koolaid.

And don't forget the crazy Islamic suicide bombers...they obviously wouldn't have joined up unless the angel Gabriel REALLY, REALLY dictated the Koran to Mohammed.

And obviously David Koresh was the second coming, and the ATF killed Jesus this time, instead of the Jews/Romans.
.

Yes, people do crazy stuff when THEY BELIEVE in their cause.

Your explanation in a prior post was that people make up cults for fame and fortune.

Starting this new cult certainly did not bring them fame and fortune....yet they stuck it out until they were killed.

Why would someone die for something they knew that they made up?

[LGM]

.
Starting this new cult certainly did not bring them fame and fortune

Are you kidding me? How much more famous can you get than Paul. He's the most famous failed apocalyptic cult leader of all times.

It's very powerful stuff when you convince other people that YOU speak for god and that they should LISTEN to YOU. The Jews wouldn't listen, they knew better. Just like you won't listen to Reverend Moon, you know better. But Paul eventually found some crazy people that would listen and follow him. Just like Koresh and Moon and so many others.

Where do you think Paul got his money to travel around and eat and clothe himself and live?
Think about it...the same place Koresh and Moon and Jim Jones did.

Speaking for god and having people listen to you and believe you sure beats working in the fields or making shoes.


....yet they stuck it out until they were killed.

Yep...people die every day for all kinds of whacky beliefs. It's well documented.

I'm guessin' you're not that faithful. Right? You're probably what they call 'luke warm'. One of those seeds that would wither the first time a little drought hit.



Why would someone die for something they knew that they made up?

Probably because they started to believe it. I'm sure Paul wasn't trying to get himself killed, and who knows how he really did die. He might have died in bed from an illness.

But dying for some religious ideal certainly doesn't prove it's true. If it did, then the Muslim martyr72 virgin deal would be a lot more true then whatever you believe in.

[saladfingers]

Well, this is my little brain thinking...

The greeks, according to Dodd, had already been wrestling with individual responsibility and guilt vs collectivist shame prior to Jesus.

I found a website that addresses this...I don't know if you've seen this or not:

http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm

I think this is main issue with the TIF! Yet no proponent of the TIF elaborates on this.

There seems to be a direct link between the criminal justice system of the west and with "guilt culture". What I find interesting is that our justice system was born in the Roman Empire during a period known as the Pax Romana (27BC - 180AD), the formative years of Christianity. In fact, there was 50+/- years of social conditioning before the advent of this new religion.

[jwarrend]

LGM, my post was analyzing TIF from an epistemic standpoint, and analyzing the structure of a particular form of logical argument to which TIF appears to be attempting to adhere. My point was to suggest that analysis and criticism of TIF should keep in mind the structure that underlies the way it is argued. It is readily apparent that you're just looking to beat Christianity with whatever stick is readily to hand. I have no interest in a discussion like that, I'm afraid.

-Jeff

[LGM]

LGM, my post was analyzing TIF from an epistemic standpoint, and analyzing the structure of a particular form of logical argument to which TIF appears to be attempting to adhere.

Yes, and I addresses your analysis directly, and why it was wrong. I don't know what you think an 'epistemic standpoint' is, nor is it clear that you yourself think TIF is a 'good' arguement.
It isn't.



My point was to suggest that analysis and criticism of TIF should keep in mind the structure that underlies the way it is argued.

Are you trying to say it's a bad argument because it has a bad 'structure'?



It is readily apparent that you're just looking to beat Christianity with whatever stick is readily to hand.

TIF's argument isn't 'Christianity' any more than JP Holding is some brilliant theologian.

[jwarrend]

Yes, and I addresses your analysis directly, and why it was wrong.

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, you didn't, you just went on about how intellectually defective you believe Christianity to be. That wasn't the point I was making. I was saying "here is a logical principle that we can utilize to weigh evidence and draw conclusions when conclusive proof can't be obtained", AND, "TIF appears to be using that kind of argument".


I don't know what you think an 'epistemic standpoint' is, nor is it clear that you yourself think TIF is a 'good' arguement.

Right; what I was addressing was to question whether the principle I mentioned is useful to draw conclusions about reality, not to critique TIF's use of that argument structure specifically. You're also right that I didn't say whether I thought TIF was a good argument or not.



Are you trying to say it's a bad argument because it has a bad 'structure'?


I am saying that if you think it's a bad argument, there are two ways to show that; one way would be to show that the overarching structure (reliance on the "prime principle of confirmation") is an invalid way to draw conclusions; the other way would be to show that the relative probabilities an argument assigns to the likelihood of observation a particular observation under the available schemes are wrongly assigned.



TIF's argument isn't 'Christianity' any more than JP Holding is some brilliant theologian.

Ok, but then, why criticize Christians and Christian belief specifically instead of confining your remarks to TIF?

-Jeff

[historic salve]

Are you a sociologist or an anthropologist?
No.


I think this whole honor/shame thing needs more research = )
It's a standard anthropological model that has been researched plenty.

[element771]

Probably because they started to believe it. I'm sure Paul wasn't trying to get himself killed, and who knows how he really did die. He might have died in bed from an illness.

But dying for some religious ideal certainly doesn't prove it's true. If it did, then the Muslim martyr72 virgin deal would be a lot more true then whatever you believe in.

But believing that what you die is the truth and knowing that you are dying for a lie are two different things. I know people die for their beliefs all the time but to die for a lie that you made up...come on.

The point you did not address is that if these people made this stuff up for fame and fortune (they did not have either for long because they were soon martyred (including Paul)...why would they die for a lie?

You seem to believe that it was all made up....would you die for a lie that you made up yourself?

How does one start believing in a lie that you made up yourself?

[historic salve]

Jesus preached a life free of shame, and one of a relationship with god, who judged all people on their actions and their hearts, which was in conflict with the honor/shame ideas, Jesus was an individualist.
Israelites had been saying that God judges the heart for centuries. Does this mean that Samuel was an individualist too (1 Sam 16:17)? No, not at all. They still had external judgment. There was no such thing as individual conscience, just group conscience. That is why it was so important for Christians to embed themselves in Jesus, because apart from him they had no identity. That is the way Mediterranean persons thought in the first century. They didn't internalize their identity. This is well-documented among social scientists, so it's not as if I'm saying anything new.


Since Freud identified guilt as a higher stage of ego development than shame
Just an example of provincialism on his part, of course. Anyway, Freud was not a social scientist. He said many things that were unscientific.


the followers of Jesus would have been individualists or people that for whatever reason were opted out of the shame culture.
Quite a leap to make based on one mistaken understanding.


Therefore, his death would not be shameful to them, but the striking statement of an individual willing to die for his beliefs.
An even bigger leap quite unwarranted based on all the data. Even individualists wouldn't see the crucifixion as honorable. What you're talking about is Romanticism, which didn't show up until... oh... 1800 years later. That kind of anachronism is a big problem.


All cultures, even ours, have honor/shame and guilt mixed to one degree or another. The way we treat our politicians, and the way gangs and high schools operate is based on honor/shame.
Yes, as I said, that's the case. But you're leaping to conclusions, and exaggerating the very small amount of one that exists in the other.


So, early christians were not only following Jesus, they were following an individualistic ideal, making the honor/shame point moot. This makes sense in the situation we have in the first century, where the mobility of people was increasing, the power of the state and law was growing, and cultural interaction was increasing, all of which reduce the effects of honor/shame cultures.
Mobility has nothing to do with honor/shame, and mobility wasn't increasing anyway. :huh: The power of "the state" is also irrelevant. The only cultural interaction that would have shown a rise in individualism is a mix with Greek culture, which displayed some aspects of individualism. However, "Greece" as an idea didn't exist in the first century (Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul 3-4). Greece had long passed its heyday by then anyway.

So, read some anthropology. It's not useful to correct people who haven't read some of this stuff to begin with.

[historic salve]

I found a website that addresses this...I don't know if you've seen this or not:

http://www.doceo.co.uk/background/shame_guilt.htm

I think this is main issue with the TIF! Yet no proponent of the TIF elaborates on this.

There seems to be a direct link between the criminal justice system of the west and with "guilt culture". What I find interesting is that our justice system was born in the Roman Empire during a period known as the Pax Romana (27BC - 180AD), the formative years of Christianity. In fact, there was 50+/- years of social conditioning before the advent of this new religion.
That link is mostly correct about shame and guilt cultures. So what in it should force TIF proponents to elaborate on it?

[John Powell]

But believing that what you die is the truth and knowing that you are dying for a lie are two different things. I know people die for their beliefs all the time but to die for a lie that you made up...come on.

The point you did not address is that if these people made this stuff up for fame and fortune (they did not have either for long because they were soon martyred (including Paul)...why would they die for a lie?

You seem to believe that it was all made up....would you die for a lie that you made up yourself?


POWELL:
What about Joseph Smith? Do you think he died for lies that he made up himself? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Marshall Applewhite? Did they die because of stuff they really believed or for lies they knew were made up? How can you tell? What about Jesus? Did he really believe the stuff he was claiming or did he know that he made it up? How can you tell?


Element771:
How does one start believing in a lie that you made up yourself?


POWELL:
I suppose by thinking irrationally. A rational person does not believe what they believe to be a lie. It would be believing what they don't believe. To be rational they would have to revise their opinion and conclude it's not a lie that they made up as they had once thought.

John Powell

[historic salve]

Just a correction: it's 1 Sam 16:7, not 17.

[element771]

POWELL:
What about Joseph Smith? Do you think he died for lies that he made up himself? What about David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Marshall Applewhite? Did they die because of stuff they really believed or for lies they knew were made up? How can you tell? What about Jesus? Did he really believe the stuff he was claiming or did he know that he made it up? How can you tell?


I agree with you but....your examples apply to Jesus not to the writers of the Gospels.


LGM posted people make up cults in order to achieve power, fortune, and/or fame. But the Apostles did not receive any of this before they were persecuted and martyred.

The resurrection is the corner stone of the Christian faith. You have to accept two scenarios:

1. Either the apostles saw Jesus after he raised from the dead.

2. Or they didn't and lied about it.

This is where dying for a lie comes into play.

[Mountain Man]

Thread moved to Tektonics per OP's request.

[The Curtmudgeon]

POWELL:
What about Joseph Smith? Do you think he died for lies that he made up himself?

Yes, because if you'll remember, from your Mormon days, Smith wasn't expecting to die. He was in prison awaiting trial -- under a guarantee of his safety from the governor, no less -- and was gunned down by a lynch mob that broke into the prison. He was not in the same situation as Jesus (where He willingly accepted a death penalty which He could have avoided), or even the others you list who mostly committed suicide (I'll agree that Koresh's situtation might be closer to Smith's than to Jones or Applewhite, but I think he would have committed suicide anyway).


What about David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Marshall Applewhite? Did they die because of stuff they really believed or for lies they knew were made up? How can you tell?

Please. All of those examples gave good solid evidence beforehand (before their respective deaths, that is) of having serious psychological issues. These people weren't living in what the rest of us refer to as "the real world".


What about Jesus? Did he really believe the stuff he was claiming or did he know that he made it up? How can you tell?

Well, for one thing, being Resurrected from the dead goes a long way toward proving that He did believe it, and was right to do so. As soon as you (or anyone) can produce 500+ witnesses to Smith, Koresh, Jones or Applewhite walking around, visiting friends, sharing a meal and all after they were dead, then you might have a valid comparison. Otherwise, you're simply making a category error.


POWELL:
I suppose by thinking irrationally. A rational person does not believe what they believe to be a lie. It would be believing what they don't believe. To be rational they would have to revise their opinion and conclude it's not a lie that they made up as they had once thought.

John Powell

You are assuming that they were rational to begin with -- i.e., that there was some point in time at which they knew (or realised, if you prefer) that they were making their beliefs up themselves. If they were already experiencing psychological separation from reality, then there would not necessarily have been any moment when they "once thought" that it was a lie or invention. They could have been living in a delusion long before their delusion got to the point of leading to their deaths (and, in the cases of Koresh, Jones and Applewhite, many others' deaths as well).

In none of the cases you bring up was the person confronted with a "Recant, or die!" option. Jesus could have simply given evidence, with witnesses, to Pilate that He had never preached sedition or separation from Rome, and Pilate would have had no basis on which to execute Him. He chose not to do so, knowing that He was submitting to a death penalty, because the death penalty, as He himself had said all along, was the reason He had come.

The (that was all a long stretch, John) Curtmudgeon

[LGM]

The amusing and ironic thing about the fallacious special pleading of Holding's ridiculous 'Impossible Faith' argument, is that the same alleged quote of Tacitus, that he trots out to 'prove' that Jesus was a historical figure, REFUTES this argument quite nicely.

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

- Tacitus

Holding goes on to say in one of his screeds:

"A survey of the literature indicates that this citation by Tacitus has not been given enough regard, having often been overshadowed by the citations in Josephus"

Well, I think we should give this citation the high regard it deserves!

Imagine that! In the capital of the alleged, incredibly consistent 'honor/shame' society, where everyone marches in lockstep, and nothing SHAMEFUL, could ever become POPULAR...here we have the most famous historian of that period, telling us how ALL THINGS hideous and shameful, from all over the world, become popular in Rome.

Dang...imagine that! And just when you thought it couldn't get more hideous and shameful than a self castrating savior god, along comes another immortal son of god, who vountarily commits faux suicide, and pretends to be dead for a couple of days, then rises, and flies off the planet in a big hurry, all in order to save the faithful believers in his various cults.

Oh my...it will be amusing to watch the Holding wannabes deal with this one.

:popcorn:

I see that the Holding wannabes can't touch this post. Can't offer any explanation for their favorite Tacitus quote which shoots down their whole lame theory. No doubt that is why they had it moved to the cage of their fearless leader. Is Holding on some kind of short leash or ankle bracelet that restricts his movements to this den of screwballs?

PWNED!

:lol:

:popcorn:

[Carpedm9587]

I'll be bowing out, at this point. I don't post in Tektonics.

Oops... I guess I just did! :blush:

Anyway - see you in a different thread.

Michel

[jpholding]

I see that the Holding wannabes can't touch this post. Can't offer any explanation for their favorite Tacitus quote which shoots down their whole lame theory. No doubt that is why they had it moved to the cage of their fearless leader. Is Holding on some kind of short leash or ankle bracelet that restricts his movements to this den of screwballs?



Yes. Kronos keeps me on his payroll.

As for your "argument" using Tacitus...yawn.... :zzz: You poor old man. You didn't know I'd dealt with that silly argument before, did you? :hehe:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nwjcarr4.html


Finally, "sympathetic to anti-elitist ideals" is a matter we have discussed in other points, but let us draw down to a more specific point. Carrier writes as though "elite" versus "non-elite" were some sort of easily divisible value system; for example, in Note 3 of this section, he appeals to Tacitus' comment that in Rome "all things hideous and shameful" come and "find their center and become popular." Carrier solemnly declares that this reveals a "hard truth" that "the 'hideous and shameful' was nevertheless popular," the implication being that being "hideous and shameful" ought not have stopped Christian growth. On the surface this point may seem sound, but as usual with Carrier, the bland specific hides a fallacy of unidimensional thought. To put it a certain way, Tacitus as an educated "elite" would no doubt find Christianity "hideous and shameful". But he also would no doubt have said the same of tractor pulls, beer-guzzling competetions, arena football, and wet T-shirt contests. Today we also have an elite who consider certain things "hideous and shameful" that our "non-elite" do not; yet it remains that there ARE things that elite and non-elite alike agree are "hideous and shameful" -- child pornography, National Socialism, animal torture. My case from the beginning has been that for elite and non-elite alike, Christianity fell into the latter type of category -- and Carrier has done nothing to show that this is not the case, except for special pleading for "exceptions" to the rules of evidence, and suggesting that the good could outweigh the bad (as if anyone would have looked better upon John Wayne Gacy because he was a good painter). Carrier's case continues to be built primary on contrivances and special pleading.

Ah, but do amuse us with further amateurish sociology, will you? :whistle: It's so amazing how you blew away dozens of credentialed sociologists with that quote they apparently never noticed. :lolo:

[jpholding]

I'll be bowing out, at this point. I don't post in Tektonics.

Translation: Carpe doesn't like it when I expose him for being the academic fraud that he is. :lol:

I'd answer his posts in full, but there's not much need to answer, "Duh, how do you know?" repeated over and over and over again. :lolo:

[jpholding]

So let’s see – this thread in a nutshell:

• shunydragon ran his mouth with the usual vague, non-answering claptrap (“For a religion to survive all you need is enough people to believe regardless of whether it was true or not. This is a common scenario for many cultures.”) and ridiculous ideas of dating the Gospels 150-180 AD! Not that he has an epistemology for dating ancient documents, or could defend such a date for them, of course.
• Add Homynym appealed to Mormonism, which I showed to be an irrelevancy in a supplemental article, and made vague appeal to “conspiracy theories”.
• LGM burped a lot, using his collection of pre-fabricated canards (such as, “Christianity isn't anything new, it's just another evolved religion that some fools latched onto. And it wasn't that sucessful, until it was franchised by the Roman empire and given exclusive patronage.” “Who are you or Holding to declare what ancient people found offensive? You haven't a clue, you don't know or speak for these people, and you have no evidence that everyone would find such an idea offensive.”), and finally misused a quote from Tacitus.
• Carpe the Academic Fraud played his usual game of “duh, how do you know….duh….duh….” and “I can make up some excuse for this not being true” and “you can’t prove that, duh ah” and “biased source, boooooo!”
• saladfingers followed with his nose in carpe’s rear and was so ignorant that he thought an article that *I* link to myself actually refuted what I offered on honor-shame.
• Zeluvia decided that maybe Jesus and his followers became modern individualists. :bonk:


Moving the thread here will increase the average IQ of the opposition at least 500 points. :lolo:

Tolk and the rest did just fine, but didn’t realize you were talking to a collection of brick walls….one more reason to stay out of Apol 301 these days. :lolo:

[LGM]

Yes. Kronos keeps me on his payroll.

Not more than minimum wage I would guess.



As for your "argument" using Tacitus...yawn.... :zzz: You poor old man. You didn't know I'd dealt with that silly argument before, did you? :hehe:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nwjcarr4.html

If by ‘poor’ you mean I pay more in taxes then you make in a year…yeah…I'm poor.

Please, is this lame analogy the best you got? My, my…it's amusing watching you squirm, when your favorite Tacitus quote contradicts your favorite fallacious tripe.
Wow…telling us about how Tacitus would find modern tractor pulls, and then comparing that to ancient people of Rome adopting hideous and shameful Christianity, and then further comparing that to modern child pornography. Oh my, more desperately amusing Holding 'intellectualism' on display. You had it right the first time librarian, the point is sound, and you have been pwned...RETREAT!

I would guess that most modern intellectual elites, including legitimate Chrisitan theologians, would find you and your little den of snot nosed apologist wannabes, frothing over the latest Loftus quote, like rabid Chihuahuas, quite akin to a WWF event. They would wonder how could people be involved in something so hideous and shameful.

I hope these dullards are sending you some paypal deposits from their allowances, they certainly can't make up an intellectual argument on their own.

Perhaps if this is the best intellectual reply you can muster, you should stick to second rate smurf cartooning? I know that's where your real creative passion lies.

BTW…the Internet called, they said your 15 minutes of fame are now over.

Tacitus makes it clear, that people adopted and did all kinds of 'hideous and shameful' things in Rome. Ho hum...the very POSSIBLE faith of Christianity is simply based on first century tractor pull dullards being swayed by traveling snakeoil salesmen like Paul, the first century equivalent of a televangelist. Give me a free meal and a denarius and I'll tell you what you need to do to survive the coming apocalypse.

Hey…perhaps some people in greater Rome, tired of the same ole, self castrated savior god, traded him in, for the latest self crucified one, that forgives you for having relations with your goat, and gives you a swell eternal life, while he burns Nero in an eternal lake of fire!

:idea:

Sounds like something an ‘elite’ like you would go for.

:lol:



Ah, but do amuse us with further amateurish sociology, will you? :whistle:

It's you who are the amateur. You have no credentials in any relevant field…remember? Which is why you're not taken seriously, except by the rabid teenage fanclub who frequents your 'screwball' threads. That's quite a following you got there!

I thought I heard you were trying to go legit? I saw some hilarious youtube video of you. Can’t quite get the top button on the shirt closed, and who taught you how to tie a Windsor knot? Toby?



It's so amazing how you blew away dozens of credentialed sociologists with that quote they apparently never noticed. :lolo:
Ahh...the nebulous appeal to the the mysterious, unnamed 'credentialed sociologists' who all support every word of your fallacious special pleading.

Hey, could you get to work and write some new, lame, fallacious argument? Your fanclub, who struggles to defend this one, needs some fresh meat to gnaw on.

[Mountain Man]

Tacitus makes it clear, that people adopted and did all kinds of 'hideous and shameful' things in Rome.
Rather than trying to hang your entire argument on a single phrase, perhaps you could demonstrate this supposedly widespread deviancy by presenting evidence of counter-cultural movements other than Christianity that attained notable popularity in Rome.

Me? I think Tactitus was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

[jpholding]

Dear Neighbor of the Beast,


Not more than minimum wage I would guess.

No, he pays well, but seldom on time.



If by ‘poor’ you mean I pay more in taxes then you make in a year…yeah…I'm poor.

I mean actually you evade more in taxes than the gross national product of five major nations.



Please, is this lame analogy the best you got?

It's sure good enough to set you posturing, ain't it? :hehe: Nuttin' here from you but the astonished wah wah pullback, "Oh, so you REALLY think that makes sense, huh" blah blah blah blah....more heat than wind, as usually. Say, how about an avatar of you as the Big Bad Wolf?



BTW…the Internet called, they said your 15 minutes of fame are now over.

Well, I have been rather busy being noticed by people like Lee Strobel in their books. :rasberry: Time to move to higher ground, don't you know.


Tacitus makes it clear, that people adopted and did all kinds of 'hideous and shameful' things in Rome.

Like I said, clue in, Phat Boy...what Tacitus calls "hideous and shameful" is not always what the lower class thought was "hideous and shameful" -- but all the data shows that Christian beliefs rated "hideous and shameful" to all....deal with it.... :lol: No, it doesn't do any good to play your "you can't read their minds" card, you pseudo-anthropologist with a degree in blathering.


Give me a free meal and a denarius and I'll tell you what you need to do to survive the coming apocalypse.

Oh? There was one planned that would kill everyone if it could? Where, please?


and gives you a swell eternal life, while he burns Nero in an eternal lake of fire!

Old news. Mystery religions. Much better offer. Try again. :rasberry:



It's you who are the amateur. You have no credentials in any relevant field…remember?

My sources do. Your new response? Oh, here it is....."BURRRRRRP." Scuse you. :blush:


Which is why you're not taken seriously, except by the rabid teenage fanclub who frequents your 'screwball' threads.

Im, sure Lee Strobel appreciates being called a rabid teenager. How's your acne count to-day? :tongue:



I thought I heard you were trying to go legit? I saw some hilarious youtube video of you. Can’t quite get the top button on the shirt closed, and who taught you how to tie a Windsor knot? Toby?

My poor little Toby passed on in November. Cocoa is in charge of tying knots for me now. In any event, that's what the director wanted, and it was his show.

In any event, I suspect we'll see a video of you next -- one of those where you put lipstick around your belly button, yeah?



Ahh...the nebulous appeal to the the mysterious, unnamed 'credentialed sociologists' who all support every word of your fallacious special pleading.

They've been named, but you won't find them in the part of the bookstore you frequent....you know, the one with authors like Seuss in it. Too bad Geisel's dead, he could have done Sam I Am trying to get you to read Malina and Rohrbaugh.

"I will not read it, Sam I Am.
I do not like sociology and ham."


Hey, could you get to work and write some new, lame, fallacious argument?.

What for? Your side hasn't had a fresh idea since Celsus. :lolo:

[LGM]

Rather than trying to hang your entire argument on a single phrase, perhaps you could demonstrate this supposedly widespread deviancy by presenting evidence of counter-cultural movements other than Christianity that attained notable popularity in Rome.

Sorry, I'm not the one making the argument, I'm just showing why the fallacious special pleading of TIF fails. Tacitus clearly shoots it down, and Holding just agreed with his statement.

And I already gave the example of Attis, a self castrated savior god, whose priests also self castrated and mutilated themselves during his festivals. Guess you weren't paying attention, as usual.



Me? I think Tactitus was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.

You mean the part about Jesus? Yeah...you're probably right, just something he heard from one of the hideous and shameful Christian Tractor Pull types in the city.

[jpholding]

Sorry, I'm not the one making the argument, I'm just showing why the fallacious special pleading of TIF fails. Tacitus clearly shoots it down, and Holding just agreed with his statement.

:twitch:

Puh-leeze. Have you been rolling up and smoking $100 bills again?


And I already gave the example of Attis, a self castrated savior god, whose priests also self castrated and mutilated themselves during his festivals. Guess you weren't paying attention, as usual.

Snort....Carrier tried that silly argument, too....old nooz....snooooree....

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nwjcarr1.html


His example of Attis, likewise, I have already responded to in the same place:

As for Attis, good point -- do you see a church of Attis today? The Attis cults fit the Sabbatai model, although they also did have the advantage of being in a time when the body was considered by many to be base and evil. Under such considerations castration was arguably not absurd at all. In any event there isn't any parallel here to Christianity, which did not die off, and had much worse to defend itself on.

(By "Sabbatai model" I mean that this belief system collapsed into non-existence. It also changed radically in an attempt to survive, borrowing Christian ideas; see here. It is therefore yet another example that validates my point: If Christianity were untrue, it would either have died out and/or thoroughly revamped itself, as the religion of Attis did. I would further add that Carrier offers no grounds to suppose that the Attis cult "commanded a very large following," much less does he provide any documentation in terms of numbers, or even an estimate, or show that the Attis cult experienced any sort of relevant growth.)

Indeed, the Attis cult's idea of castration was merely a logical extension to the belief that the body needed to be freed from itself. Contemporaries would ridicule it on the grounds that it cut off (literally) the ability to procreate, and thus enjoy the benefits that went with it -- particularly offspring who would preserve honor for the family and care for the aged parent. Attisians might retort that they saw no need to burden a descendant with a body either, and that for support in old age, they'd help each other. Their version of the solution is short-sighted and perhaps impractical, but it is still within the confines of the social and philosophical system of the average person of the day. This is simply not the case where Christianity is concerned.

Update, 5/05: Somehow Carrier invents the idea that I argue here that "the fact that Christianity outlawed the Attis cult into extinction as evidence for the inability of Attis cult to survive". I said nothing at all about Christianity outlawing anything; indeed I said zero about the means whereby the Attis cult died out, and thus Carrier's charge of non sequitur is a straw man. Carrier also ignores a clear link to an item on the cult which shows that it critically revamped itself -- not because of being outlawed, but because no one found it competitively desirable -- and fails to deal with the critical problem of the mainstream Christian system not doing the same in the face of adversarial conditions (unlike heretics). Carrier's charge that Christianity "did revamp itself, quite often throughout its growth" is completely without substance with the particularhe cites of James or Peter versus Paul.

I noted as well that Carrier failed to prove that the Attis cult "commanded a very large following," but stamps his feet and retorts that he "cited several scholarly sources on the subject, which include surveys of the literary and archaeological evidence demonstrating it had a considerable, visible presence" -- which he then (quietly) says was "at least in the tens of thousands". Really now? Tens of thousands, out of 65 million?

Guess YOU weren't payin' attention either. :rasberry: Face it, Georgie....you're old news. Stale. Out to pasture. Dull. Oh so 50s. I mean, 1850s of course. :tongue:


You mean the part about Jesus? Yeah...you're probably right, just something he heard from one of the hideous and shameful Christian Tractor Pull types in the city.

:lol: Look at it this way, Georgie....good old Tacitus had no understanding of why people believed that stuff...he knew it was hideous and shameful, and that people believed in it anyway, but since he couldn't accept a status reversal as an explanation (eg, the resurrection) he didn't postulate a cause. He had none. To read into this some sort of reversal of the TIF thesis, supposing that there was some unevidenced group that had no problemo with crucified criminals, and that all we know of honor and shame in that regard is mysteriously false, is, well....an act of serious desperation on your part. :hehe:

But that's not news.

I think you'll be good for maybe 2 more messages before you putter out. Don't you have any little old ladies' houses you need to foreclose on? :wink:

[Mountain Man]

Thought I'd mention this over here. saladfingers apparently thinks that studies based on contemporary honor-shame cultures is enough to overturn TIF. He boldly delcares:

"But what I am finding here is that there are many frontiers of the honor/shame realms of societies that are now being explored as an academic discipline. There seems to be alot of unchartered territory left, and the final word is not going to be the theologian's...or will it?

"I would like to see thow he TIF theory holds up to the scrutinty of the INDCOL, the individualism/collectivism scale. My hunch is that it would be dashed to bits."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2295704&postcount=38

I answered him here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2295841&postcount=40), but I figured JP would want to have his say.

[jpholding]

I answered him here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2295841&postcount=40), but I figured JP would want to have his say.

There's not much I can add to what you said other than the expected, which is that he is an idiot. :smile: Maybe he can get INDCOL to do some time travelling.

[TolkienFan]

Due to my experience with this thread, I'm not interested in entering that one. Only once was anything I said actually refuted. That was when I said Bruce Malina et al. did not qualify as theologians. DeSilva still doesn't qualify, but the rest do. Otherwise, I was basically just talking to some brick walls that liked to say "how do you know" and one rather venomous atheist who posted basically the same tripe over and over again.

But I would like to see them enter JP's domain with this. I'm sure they would like to say that they don't wish to enter because the discussion wouldn't be productive. What that basically means is, "I don't wish to be refuted by someone more immersed in the literature than myself."

There is one thing I'm wondering. Since these guys do have degrees in theology (sans DeSilva), did they just simply get their erudition of ancient anthropology by researching these matters themselves for however many years after they got their respective theology degrees? Do they rely heavily on other members of the Context Group and other ancient anthropologists? Or is it mix of both? Just curious. Regardless of if it's option 1, 2, or 3, their conclusions are valid even if their Ph. D's had come in English Poetry. Like I said, it doesn't undermine their conclusions at all, I'm just curious on the specifics.

[historic salve]

I think you'll be good for maybe 2 more messages before you putter out. Don't you have any little old ladies' houses you need to foreclose on? :wink:
Looks like he ran out of steam without getting the last word. Is that a first for LGM?

[jpholding]

There is one thing I'm wondering. Since these guys do have degrees in theology (sans DeSilva), did they just simply get their erudition of ancient anthropology by researching these matters themselves for however many years after they got their respective theology degrees? Do they rely heavily on other members of the Context Group and other ancient anthropologists?

I think deSilva did his own research. Witherington relies on the CG and others, though.

[jwarrend]

Hi TF,

I just read a book chapter by Malina that I thought might be of interest in light of Factor #1, the issue of the shame of the cross. The chapter is on "Pain, Power, and Personhood: Ascetic Behavior in the Ancient Mediterranean", and the book is Asceticism, eds V. Wimbush, R. Valantasis and G. Byron, Oxford University Press (2002). The text of the chapter is available on Google books, which is where I came across it. The chapter is an interesting read, and, while not pertinent in its entireity to your thread, concludes with a section, beginning on pg 170, on "Turning Pain into Power".


...Now if a power wielder tries to control another to no avail, that other person in fact makes the claim that the power wielder really has no power -- lots of symbolic huff and puff, but no teeth, no force. The power wielder must apply the sanctions of force in order to prove his or her power. Now when force is applied to another, that other person is expected to comply with the wishes of the power wielder. Yet if the other person still does not comply, even in the face of force, then the value of force is seen as inflated in the eyes of the public...[T]he endurance of force, usually in the form of pain, yields power to the one enduring it.

Similarly, humiliation can be turned to honor. A person is expected to comply under threat of shame with the wishes of the one shaming. If, however, the person does not comply...then the position of the one attempting to humiliate is open to question in the eyes of the public...Humiliation endured can produce an increase of honor and a sense of solidarity in the eyes of an observing public.

[T]he defiant endurance of force can produce power, just as the defiant endurance of humiliation can produce honor along with a sense of solidarity in the eyes of an observing public.

Since power wielders are normally those of superior status in society, freely chosen suffering is a claim to superiority over persons of superior status, if not a claim to their power...Similarily...since group superiors are normally ascribed superior status in society, freely chosen humiliation is a claim to superiority over superior status persons, a claim to their honor. If this claim is recognized by compliance on the part of others, then claims to honor become real honor.

(I encourage you to check out the whole chapter (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oPrlN1GDfyYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA162&dq=bruce+malina+b-malina&ots=ANHzGrpq4q&sig=uB5PLD8BIxOfsIMkoWL3F18yBP4#PPA167,M1), it is an interesting read).

I found all of this very interesting, as it casts very useful light on Christ's trial before Pilate, and adds expanded meaning to his words in John 10, "No man taketh [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again."

My question to you is whether you think this impacts point #1 in your post. You make the case that crucifixion would have been viewed as shameful, yet here Malina makes the case that Christ's endurance of pain and humiliation could/would have been perceived as declarations of superiority to his accusers and executioners, and, if accepted, would have accumulated honor in the eyes of onlookers. Certainly, it seems that the Gospels intend for their audience to conclude that Christ's honor was increased by his patient endurance of the cross, insofar as they all describe the details of the trial and execution and pay particular attention to his silence in the face of his accusers. And several of the Epistles make mention of this as well.

It seems that you might counter this by saying something along the lines of "yes, Christ tried to resist those in power, but he was unsuccessful, and his execution would have repudiated (in the eyes of the audience) his implicit claim to superiority over those in power". The problem I have with that is that Malina doesn't, in this chapter at least, say that "those in power backing off" must be a necessary component of such an honor-accruing endurance of pain or humiliation. Moreover, neither does the NT. The authors don't say, "Christ certainly seems shameful as evidenced by his execution, but since He was raised from the dead, I guess looks are deceving and He really was honorable after all." (*) On the contrary, they contend that Christ's endurance of undeserved suffering was honorable and worthy of emulation, which is consistent with what Malina says in the excerpt I quoted.

Please note that I am not trying to argue with you so much as have a dialogue about this particular point from your post. I would welcome your reply, if you find the point an interesting one to discuss.

Best,

-Jeff


(*) I suspect this point is destined to be misunderstood, so let me try to clarify in advance. What I mean here is the idea that while the authors acknowledge the shame associated with the manner of death that Christ died, they don't legitimize that shame as being genuine. They don't say, "yup, he was a miserable, shameful wretch, but we'd better follow him anyway, seeing as how he raised from the dead and all".

[TolkienFan]

[Darnit, I don't know what happened, but Tweb ate a response I had about Malina, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey, and Pilch. Oh well, guess I'll have to try again later].

Hey jwarrend.

I'm not sure about doing this since JP can do a better job of defending his own thesis. He may respond later or he may not. I guess we'll see.


Originally posted by jwarrend

My question to you is whether you think this impacts point #1 in your post. You make the case that crucifixion would have been viewed as shameful, yet here Malina makes the case that Christ's endurance of pain and humiliation could/would have been perceived as declarations of superiority to his accusers and executioners, and, if accepted, would have accumulated honor in the eyes of onlookers. Certainly, it seems that the Gospels intend for their audience to conclude that Christ's honor was increased by his patient endurance of the cross, insofar as they all describe the details of the trial and execution and pay particular attention to his silence in the face of his accusers. And several of the Epistles make mention of this as well.

The thing is, Malina's declarations are rather general, not very specific. If he holds to this view rather rigorously, it would contradict the research of the Context Group as presented in the Social-Science Commentary on John and Martin Hengel's research that resulted in his monograph on Crucifixion, not exactly a "no big deal" kind of thing.

Also, there are a couple important things here. First, the key is defiance. In the trials, Jesus' defiance can be seen, but not so much in the Crucifixion. The Crucifixion wasn't really a measure of pain or humiliation designed to put the victim back into compliance. It was simply a dishonorable execution. Now, if there was a point where someone had said, "we'll take you off and give you immediate medical care if only you recant," this would be a different story. What happened was that he was doomed to die that way whether he liked it or not. As this was not a measure designed to put the person back into compliance, it doesn't really apply here.

Another important thing is that implicit declaration of superiority. I'll deal with this more fully in the next paragraph as the next important thing is inevitably tied to this one.

Finally, the most important factor in this whole ordeal is the acceptance of others. We have to ask how that could have come about. As noted, by defiance, Jesus was making an implicit honor claim of superiority to his assailants. If Jesus had been defiant through this and another measure of pain and shame, it would have been one thing. However, we have a situation where Jesus had a possiblity of acquiring honor followed by a death that would have been so ignominious as to make void all of his honor claims. Not only would Jesus have the shame of the cross hanging over his post-mortem reputation, he would also have the shame of void and pretentious honor claims (such as the one in his trials). As such, we're back at square 1. Yet, from the data of history, we know that the resultant movement based on Jesus was able to move past this factor. What, apart from a vindication of honor like the Resurrection, would have been able to overcome this?


It seems that you might counter this by saying something along the lines of "yes, Christ tried to resist those in power, but he was unsuccessful, and his execution would have repudiated (in the eyes of the audience) his implicit claim to superiority over those in power". The problem I have with that is that Malina doesn't, in this chapter at least, say that "those in power backing off" must be a necessary component of such an honor-accruing endurance of pain or humiliation. Moreover, neither does the NT. The authors don't say, "Christ certainly seems shameful as evidenced by his execution, but since He was raised from the dead, I guess looks are deceving and He really was honorable after all." (*) On the contrary, they contend that Christ's endurance of undeserved suffering was honorable and worthy of emulation, which is consistent with what Malina says in the excerpt I quoted.

As you can tell by my answer, your guess is not quite right.:wink:

I don't say anything about his defiance and resistance being unsuccessful, but that defiance is irrelevant where the Crucifixion is concerned. Neither is freely chosen suffering as the Gospel narratives make it clear that it was Pilate at the prodding of the Jews that chose this form of death. One can relate the foretellings of Jesus' death, but due to other factors mentioned before, this wouldn't have gotten them out of the tight spot. Why? Because the whole debate was over Jesus' divinity. Assuming these prophecies of his death to be proof of that wouldn't have gotten them anywhere for obvious reasons. They would have to find another way to prove divinity and then come back and show that this fits with that idea.

But dying on a cross wouldn't be seen as an act of defiance unless there was a situation like I mentioned earlier. As the Gospel narratives show, Jesus didn't really have a choice in this matter. He was told how he would die. As far as the excerpt you quoted from Malina shows, it wasn't undeserved suffering that gave someone honor, but defiance amidst that suffering. We don't see this being related to Jesus' Crucifixion.


Please note that I am not trying to argue with you so much as have a dialogue about this particular point from your post. I would welcome your reply, if you find the point an interesting one to discuss.

I realize that.


(*) I suspect this point is destined to be misunderstood, so let me try to clarify in advance. What I mean here is the idea that while the authors acknowledge the shame associated with the manner of death that Christ died, they don't legitimize that shame as being genuine. They don't say, "yup, he was a miserable, shameful wretch, but we'd better follow him anyway, seeing as how he raised from the dead and all".

Once again, your suspicion is wrong.:wink:

But I wonder how you maintain the idea that they don't see the shame as genuine.

Hebrews 12:2-

Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The shame was acknowledged, but it was scorned by Christ.

Now, this might be seen as a cite proving your point, but the problem with that idea is that Hebrews, like all the Epistles, assumes a Christian worldview. This was written to those already converted. This was not something that was trying to convince an outsider that Jesus is God. IOW, it presupposes a Resurrection, the ultimate vindication event.

Also, don't forget to vote Solid Snake as AotM

[jpholding]

I'm not sure about doing this since JP can do a better job of defending his own thesis. He may respond later or he may not.

Not to him. I have him on Ignore precisely because he keeps saying stupid things like this in defense of his postmodern delusions.

Based on what I've read of the quotes, you responded properly. It would be absurd to argue that the Romans sentenced people to crucifixion knowing they'd accrue honor from suffering so well. :lolo: But that's the type of dumb argument the man makes all the time as a way of trying to defuse the agonistic paradigm in Scripture that blows away that comfy-comfy Jesus feeling he holds so dear.

[TolkienFan]

Hey JP. Have you voted for Solid Snake yet?

[jpholding]

Hey JP. Have you voted for Solid Snake yet?

I was thinking of nominating Doubting John again. On the 30th. :hehe:

[Chaotic Void]

I was thinking of nominating Doubting John again. On the 30th. :hehe:

You should have made a gag nomination on the first...

[jwarrend]

[Darnit, I don't know what happened, but Tweb ate a response I had about Malina, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey, and Pilch. Oh well, guess I'll have to try again later].

Bummer man. But, I very much appreciate the response that you did post!



I'm not sure about doing this since JP can do a better job of defending his own thesis. He may respond later or he may not. I guess we'll see.

Not al all, it's your thread and I appreciate as well as prefer hearing your thoughts on the matter.

A couple of quick prefatory remarks before I respond to your excellent post. The first is that while, as I said and you acknowledged, I am mostly interested in a discussion exploring the implications of this Malina chapter and am not "attacking" TIF, I nevertheless feel that the stakes of the discussion are quite low. The TIF hypothesis doesn't seem like it should stand or fall on the validity of any one of its premises, and more importantly, the validity of Christianity does not stand or fall on the validity of the TIF hypothesis. It could be the case that Christianity was a perfectly decent and respectable belief by Greco-Roman standards and yet it nevertheless could be true. Christianity isn't made true by its implausibility, but rather, by the veracity of the central events that Christians purport to have occurred in the NT era.

Second, I'd like to make sure I correctly understand your point with respect to the shame of the cross. Are you saying that suffering on a cross would have made Jesus appear so shameful to people that they wouldn't have wanted to have anything to do with Him, because they would have been repulsed or disgusted by such a reprehensible individual? Or are you saying that people would have been aware that, as a result of the cross, others in society considered Jesus to be shameful and that, whatever they thought of Him personally, associating with a movement built around Jesus would have made them shameful in the eyes of their contemporaries, and therefore would have been something people would have wanted to avoid? I recognize that these may not be completely separable, but I feel that there's a slight and subtle distinction between them and depending on which you affirm, it may influence the way we apply Malina's chapter that I cited.

On to the actual discussion!


The thing is, Malina's declarations are rather general, not very specific.

This is true, he doesn't (here) apply his observations to the life of Christ specifically, and moreover, the paragraphs I cited came from a chapter on asceticism. I don't know whether scholars necessarily identify Jesus as having been an ascetic (seems like a bit of a stretch to me). So, we should indeed not assume automatically that his analysis is applicable, but I nevertheless thought it would be worth bringing up, to discuss whether it might be.


If he holds to this view rather rigorously, it would contradict the research of the Context Group as presented in the Social-Science Commentary on John and Martin Hengel's research that resulted in his monograph on Crucifixion, not exactly a "no big deal" kind of thing.

Indeed, insofar as (I think) Malina is one of the founding members of the Context Group, I think the paragraph is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. But, it isn't immediately clear to me how Malina's chapter would "contradict" the research of the rest of the Context Group, unless they had concluded that Jesus' performance at the trial was shameful rather than honorable. Do they conclude that, that you're aware of?



Also, there are a couple important things here. First, the key is defiance. In the trials, Jesus' defiance can be seen, but not so much in the Crucifixion. The Crucifixion wasn't really a measure of pain or humiliation designed to put the victim back into compliance. It was simply a dishonorable execution. Now, if there was a point where someone had said, "we'll take you off and give you immediate medical care if only you recant," this would be a different story. What happened was that he was doomed to die that way whether he liked it or not. As this was not a measure designed to put the person back into compliance, it doesn't really apply here.


Well, I agree with you that Malina's chapter appears to bear more on the trial than on the cross. I think the road to the cross as well as the treatment that the onlookers gave Jesus on the cross certainly included a healthy dose of "humiliation" but whether it's in the sense that Malina means in the chapter, you're right, we could have some doubt about that.

That said, I think it would be rather blithe of us to dismiss the trial as being important or pertinent. To me, the trial and the cross are something of a package deal, particularly since the cross is the result of the trial. In all four gospels, both the trial and the cross are grouped together in the same chapter (*), so obviously someone else thought this as well. You can say "Jesus wouldn't have earned honor from the cross by the mechanism Malina describes", and I have no specific reason to doubt that, but my question was more that if he could/would have accrued honor from the trial, then doesn't that call into question the hypothesis that the cross would have made Jesus's status irretrievably shameful?

(*) sort of; in John, of course, the trial begins in chapter 18 and concludes in 19, which also includes the Resurrection



Finally, the most important factor in this whole ordeal is the acceptance of others. We have to ask how that could have come about. As noted, by defiance, Jesus was making an implicit honor claim of superiority to his assailants. If Jesus had been defiant through this and another measure of pain and shame, it would have been one thing. However, we have a situation where Jesus had a possiblity of acquiring honor followed by a death that would have been so ignominious as to make void all of his honor claims. Not only would Jesus have the shame of the cross hanging over his post-mortem reputation, he would also have the shame of void and pretentious honor claims (such as the one in his trials). As such, we're back at square 1. Yet, from the data of history, we know that the resultant movement based on Jesus was able to move past this factor. What, apart from a vindication of honor like the Resurrection, would have been able to overcome this?

My concern here is that your thesis appears to rely on your ability to successfully mind-read the people of the first century and decide conclusively the way they would have viewed these events. If on the one hand people viewed Jesus' performance at the trial as honorable (a reasonable conclusion based on Malina as well as the Gospels' description of the trial) and they also viewed the cross as shameful, which one "wins" in people's eyes? And would it have been uniform across all people? Could it have been the case that, after all the dust settled, some members of society would have viewed Jesus as honorable and others would have viewed Him as shameful? Can you really say conclusively that there is no way this could have been the case?

Case in point, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus sought to provide Jesus with an honorable burial, even though He has just been executed by crucifixion, and even though He hadn't yet been vindicated by the Resurrection. But these didn't stop them from viewing Him as honorable. I recognize this is a far cry from starting a movement based on Christ's deity, but my point is simply to say that in some people's eyes, apparently Christ retained His honor even despite having been crucified, and that Malina's chapter gives us one plausible reason for why that might have been the case. (Note that I believe Nicodemus and Joseph had probably concluded that Jesus was honorable before the trial).



As you can tell by my answer, your guess is not quite right.:wink:


Well, to be honest, I actually think it was pretty much bang-on. You said that whatever honor Jesus accumulated by His performance at the trial would have been nullified by the shame of the cross, which is essentially exactly what I predicted. (You're right, your response didn't hang on the "success" of the attempt, but other than that, you're pretty much saying that the cross overrules the trial, which is essentially what I was predicting!)



I don't say anything about his defiance and resistance being unsuccessful, but that defiance is irrelevant where the Crucifixion is concerned. Neither is freely chosen suffering as the Gospel narratives make it clear that it was Pilate at the prodding of the Jews that chose this form of death.

I disagree with you here, Jesus said that he laid down His life of His own volition, and His response to Pilate upon Pilate's threat to hold Christ's life in his hands was "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above". It is quite clear that Jesus was declaring His suffering to have been freely chosen. If others recognized that claim as legitimate, it could have accumulated honor for Him in the eyes of onlookers.



One can relate the foretellings of Jesus' death, but due to other factors mentioned before, this wouldn't have gotten them out of the tight spot. Why? Because the whole debate was over Jesus' divinity. Assuming these prophecies of his death to be proof of that wouldn't have gotten them anywhere for obvious reasons. They would have to find another way to prove divinity and then come back and show that this fits with that idea.

Well, I do agree that Jesus' defiance wouldn't necessarily, in and of itself, have established His divinity. But that isn't what I read the TIF hypothesis to be claiming. Rather, the claim is, it seems, that Jesus' death was so shameful that no one would have built a movement around Him absent the truth of the Resurrection (or something comparably persuasive). If people could have viewed Jesus as honorable despite the cross (for whatever the reason, be it the Malina chapter or otherwise), I think that could potentially weaken this aspect of the TIF, but not necessarily the TIF overall and certainly not the validity or veracity of Christian faith as a whole!

Let me, then, ask the question straight-out. Do you think, from the perspective of a 1st century member of Greco-Roman or Jewish society living in Palestine, Jesus' conduct at His trial would have been seen as honorable? It seems inescapable to me that the Gospel writers want us to conclude that it was.



But I wonder how you maintain the idea that they don't see the shame as genuine.


I meant that the authors believed Jesus to be honorable, not shameful. They believed the cross to be shameful but they didn't believe Jesus to have been genuinely shamed by the cross. They didn't despise Him. Hope that clears it up.

Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. I appreciate your perspective.

-Jeff

[LGM]

Due to my experience with this thread, I'm not interested in entering that one. Only once was anything I said actually refuted.

Please, the Tacitus quote refutes the whole ignorant special pleading of TIF.

There's NO evidence that the early members of these various far flung messianic cults, located far away from Jerusalem, which had been destroyed and it's people killed, had ANY first hand knowledge of the ressurection events depicted in the gospels...NONE. There's no evidence that Paul had any knowledge of these events.

You haven't quoted a SINGLE member of any messianc sect claiming to have become a Christian, despite finding it's crucified god shameful, because he KNEW, for a FACT, first hand, that the resurrection...REALLY, REALLY happened. That's a croc.

You're special pleading that people didn't become involved with shameful things is completely refuted by Tacitus quote.

People joined Christianity for the same reason they've joined whacky religious cults throughout history...because they had a parent who was one, or a peer, or some charismatic nutjob convinced them.

Hello Joseph Smith, Hello Jim Jones, Hello David Koresh, Hello Reverend Moon, Hello Marshall Applewhite, Hello Fred Phelps, Hello Saul of Tarsus.

No difference between any of them, and the tactics they use to get people to believe their crap.

There's an endless supply of superstitious, gullible people in the world. And now they even have librarians posing as psuedo-intellectuals to convince them their inane superstitions HAVE to be TRUE...because some other people BELIEVED it, even though it was shameful and stupid.

Now believing in something shameful and stupid is called 'righteous' and 'spiritual'.

Don't quit your day jobs.

[jpholding]

BUUUUUURRRRRRRRRPPPPP

I don't suppose you had fries with those old, stale burgers you were serving up?

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by jwarrend

Not al all, it's your thread and I appreciate as well as prefer hearing your thoughts on the matter.

A couple of quick prefatory remarks before I respond to your excellent post. The first is that while, as I said and you acknowledged, I am mostly interested in a discussion exploring the implications of this Malina chapter and am not "attacking" TIF, I nevertheless feel that the stakes of the discussion are quite low. The TIF hypothesis doesn't seem like it should stand or fall on the validity of any one of its premises, and more importantly, the validity of Christianity does not stand or fall on the validity of the TIF hypothesis. It could be the case that Christianity was a perfectly decent and respectable belief by Greco-Roman standards and yet it nevertheless could be true. Christianity isn't made true by its implausibility, but rather, by the veracity of the central events that Christians purport to have occurred in the NT era.

Well no, TIF has quite a few elements to it so even if a factor were to be proven wrong, it does nothing to the whole of the argument except take one of the many elements away. No Christianity doesn't stand or fall on the TIF argument. It's a rather powerful argument though. But still, as Pink Floyd would say, it's just another brick in the wall.

The thing is, from what we can tell, that wasn't the case. As all the factors are based upon historical observations of scholars who've studied these things for years (or at least some who used such scholars as their sources), it seems that such wasn't the case. After all, a faith that's seen as perfectly respectable wouldn't be so persecuted (Romans 8:35-36, 2 Corinthians 1:5-11, 2 Corinthians 6:3-10, and Hebrews 10:32-34 seem to point to persecution being at least an almost universal experience in the formative years).

Well, I don't think either I or JP think that Christianity is made true solely by its "implausibility", but that it's another strong argument in favor of Christianity's truth. It's more deductive than arguments from the likes of Gary Habermas and Mike Licona (both very good at making the case).


Second, I'd like to make sure I correctly understand your point with respect to the shame of the cross. Are you saying that suffering on a cross would have made Jesus appear so shameful to people that they wouldn't have wanted to have anything to do with Him, because they would have been repulsed or disgusted by such a reprehensible individual? Or are you saying that people would have been aware that, as a result of the cross, others in society considered Jesus to be shameful and that, whatever they thought of Him personally, associating with a movement built around Jesus would have made them shameful in the eyes of their contemporaries, and therefore would have been something people would have wanted to avoid? I recognize that these may not be completely separable, but I feel that there's a slight and subtle distinction between them and depending on which you affirm, it may influence the way we apply Malina's chapter that I cited.

You're right, they're not completely separable, as I would say it's a combination of both. The only real difference that I see is one is about how people would view being associated with Jesus and the other is about how people would view other people associated with Jesus.


This is true, he doesn't (here) apply his observations to the life of Christ specifically, and moreover, the paragraphs I cited came from a chapter on asceticism. I don't know whether scholars necessarily identify Jesus as having been an ascetic (seems like a bit of a stretch to me). So, we should indeed not assume automatically that his analysis is applicable, but I nevertheless thought it would be worth bringing up, to discuss whether it might be.

Well, you'll be able to find just about any view of Jesus you can think of if you look for it. But I can't say for sure if there's any amongst the scholarly community that hold to the view of Jesus as an ascetic, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.


Indeed, insofar as (I think) Malina is one of the founding members of the Context Group, I think the paragraph is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. But, it isn't immediately clear to me how Malina's chapter would "contradict" the research of the rest of the Context Group, unless they had concluded that Jesus' performance at the trial was shameful rather than honorable. Do they conclude that, that you're aware of?

I'm saying, if this analysis could be legitimately be applied specifically to crucifixion, it would contradict their research. As far as the trial is concerned, I agree with you there, but any claims to honor would have been made void if it all ended with crucifixion (which is what I thought we were talking about).


Well, I agree with you that Malina's chapter appears to bear more on the trial than on the cross. I think the road to the cross as well as the treatment that the onlookers gave Jesus on the cross certainly included a healthy dose of "humiliation" but whether it's in the sense that Malina means in the chapter, you're right, we could have some doubt about that.

That said, I think it would be rather blithe of us to dismiss the trial as being important or pertinent. To me, the trial and the cross are something of a package deal, particularly since the cross is the result of the trial. In all four gospels, both the trial and the cross are grouped together in the same chapter (*), so obviously someone else thought this as well. You can say "Jesus wouldn't have earned honor from the cross by the mechanism Malina describes", and I have no specific reason to doubt that, but my question was more that if he could/would have accrued honor from the trial, then doesn't that call into question the hypothesis that the cross would have made Jesus's status irretrievably shameful?

(*) sort of; in John, of course, the trial begins in chapter 18 and concludes in 19, which also includes the Resurrection

As I've said, the ignominity of the crucifixion would have rendered an implicit honor claim made during the trial (as well as others Jesus had made earlier) void. A man who died the death of criminals and seditionists wouldn't be seen as one worthy of the honor he tried to claim for himself. Like I said, the shame of the cross would be combined with void honor claims.


My concern here is that your thesis appears to rely on your ability to successfully mind-read the people of the first century and decide conclusively the way they would have viewed these events. If on the one hand people viewed Jesus' performance at the trial as honorable (a reasonable conclusion based on Malina as well as the Gospels' description of the trial) and they also viewed the cross as shameful, which one "wins" in people's eyes? And would it have been uniform across all people? Could it have been the case that, after all the dust settled, some members of society would have viewed Jesus as honorable and others would have viewed Him as shameful? Can you really say conclusively that there is no way this could have been the case?

Case in point, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus sought to provide Jesus with an honorable burial, even though He has just been executed by crucifixion, and even though He hadn't yet been vindicated by the Resurrection. But these didn't stop them from viewing Him as honorable. I recognize this is a far cry from starting a movement based on Christ's deity, but my point is simply to say that in some people's eyes, apparently Christ retained His honor even despite having been crucified, and that Malina's chapter gives us one plausible reason for why that might have been the case. (Note that I believe Nicodemus and Joseph had probably concluded that Jesus was honorable before the trial).

Well, from what can be told from the evidence (presented in Factor #1 of Holding's article and defended elsewhere), crucifixion was something that was basically a universal offense due to its very nature.

BTW, who says this was an honorable burial? According to Byron McCane (see here (http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm)), it was a rather dishonorable burial. However, the spices brought to anoint Jesus would be seen as a way to give him some honor as this was an attempt to keep the body from the stench of decay for as long as possible. Clearly, both Nicodemus and the women who were coming to the tomb, sought to give Jesus some honor in however small capacity it might be. Remember though that this was done by followers seeking to give their leader whatever vestige of honor they could get. But by outsiders, this would be seen as no more than a desperate attempt rather than a legitimate claim to honor. But still, as far as imaginative (and rather extravagant) claims of divinity are concerned, it seems unlikely that such would hold water with any of these people, much less outsiders according to the circumstances.


Well, to be honest, I actually think it was pretty much bang-on. You said that whatever honor Jesus accumulated by His performance at the trial would have been nullified by the shame of the cross, which is essentially exactly what I predicted. (You're right, your response didn't hang on the "success" of the attempt, but other than that, you're pretty much saying that the cross overrules the trial, which is essentially what I was predicting!)

Well, it wasn't quite right in that there was more to my presentation than that. You were right to some extent, but not exactly a prophet.:wink:


I disagree with you here, Jesus said that he laid down His life of His own volition, and His response to Pilate upon Pilate's threat to hold Christ's life in his hands was "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above". It is quite clear that Jesus was declaring His suffering to have been freely chosen. If others recognized that claim as legitimate, it could have accumulated honor for Him in the eyes of onlookers.

But unless it's first acknlowdged that Jesus was God, it wouldn't be seen that Jesus was in control here. Rather, it would be seen that Jesus was a man doomed to die such a horrendously shameful death and that he foolishly accepted such a fate. Unless the deity of Jesus was presupposed (which would require something else), he wouldn't be seen as being master of his fate. As such, the claim wouldn't be recognized as legitimate, which is what this whole equation hinges upon. As I've said, this doesn't fit with Malina's observations since crucifixion wasn't a measure of shame designed to put the victim back into compliance, but a final shameful doom of the most ignominious kind.


Well, I do agree that Jesus' defiance wouldn't necessarily, in and of itself, have established His divinity. But that isn't what I read the TIF hypothesis to be claiming. Rather, the claim is, it seems, that Jesus' death was so shameful that no one would have built a movement around Him absent the truth of the Resurrection (or something comparably persuasive). If people could have viewed Jesus as honorable despite the cross (for whatever the reason, be it the Malina chapter or otherwise), I think that could potentially weaken this aspect of the TIF, but not necessarily the TIF overall and certainly not the validity or veracity of Christian faith as a whole!

Let me, then, ask the question straight-out. Do you think, from the perspective of a 1st century member of Greco-Roman or Jewish society living in Palestine, Jesus' conduct at His trial would have been seen as honorable? It seems inescapable to me that the Gospel writers want us to conclude that it was.

As the TIF sees it, there would be no way to get around or jump over the obstacle of the crucifixion (or the many other factors) except if the Resurrection actually happened. And if Jesus rose from the dead, wouldn't a claim of divinity be associated with him? (Since no prophet or miracle worker came to raise him, but he raised himself).

From the evidence Malina presents, it seems the answer is yes, with qualification. The conduct at the trials would have been seen as an implicit honor claim (not necessarily honorable conduct, as that relies on perception of others). But one would ask the question of if that implicit honor claim was valid, which the crucifixion event that followed would answer with a resounding no.


I meant that the authors believed Jesus to be honorable, not shameful. They believed the cross to be shameful but they didn't believe Jesus to have been genuinely shamed by the cross. They didn't despise Him. Hope that clears it up.

But in the great context of it all, we have to ask why they saw him this way. The shame is acknowledged in Hebrews 12:2, but it was seen as a shame that was scorned because something greater (the ultimate vindication) would follow. From what can be told, they didn't perceive this for no reason, but rather because of the Resurrection, the ultimate vindication (which the TIF, as well as the whole of the Christian faith, rests upon).

[LGM]

I don't suppose you had fries with those old, stale burgers you were serving up?

Why don't you draw me one of your wannabe smurf cartoons, where one of your little buxom forest creatures is calling Tacitus a liar?

That will remind me of your real talent.

I do get a kick out of your librarian inductive prowess.

1. Christianity is just too shameful and inane for ANYONE to believe in.
2. People believed it.
3. Therefore everything in the gospels has to be TRUE.

:lol:

No wonder you're the house apologist on this backwater intellectual wasteland.

[jwarrend]

Another great reply, TF. I will limit my response to just a few of your points. Feel free to let me know if I ignored anything that you feel necessitates a response.




I'm saying, if this analysis could be legitimately be applied specifically to crucifixion, it would contradict their research. As far as the trial is concerned, I agree with you there, but any claims to honor would have been made void if it all ended with crucifixion (which is what I thought we were talking about).

As I've said, the ignominity of the crucifixion would have rendered an implicit honor claim made during the trial (as well as others Jesus had made earlier) void. A man who died the death of criminals and seditionists wouldn't be seen as one worthy of the honor he tried to claim for himself. Like I said, the shame of the cross would be combined with void honor claims.

It seems to me then that my original prediction is actually confirmed, then; in fact, you are saying that because the authorities didn't "back down" in light of Jesus' defiance, that therefore any honor gained in resisting power as He did was washed away by the shame accrued by the cross.

The problem I have with this is that Malina's analysis doesn't say anything about a necessity of successful resistance in order for gaining honor. It isn't stated implicitly or explicitly that, if you try to resist those in power when they try to wield pain or humiliation against you, that you only accrue honor if your defiance causes them to back off and leave you alone. In contrast, it is stated explicitly that if the audience perceived a person resisting power or humiliation to be in the right, then that could result in the person gaining honor as a result. And again, the fact that the Gospels present Jesus' conduct at the trial as honorable emphasizes that they felt this way as well (ie, it corroborates the interpretation of Malina's chapter that I am suggesting).

Do you have any substantiation to your assertion that the shame of the cross absolutely, positively would have overrode any honor He would have gained from the trial? That it is completely impossible and inconceivable that someone who witnessed the trial would have come away from it believing Jesus to have earned honor for Himself (and to feel that the net increase in honor was greater than the net loss of honor associated with the cross)? I think you're trying to mind-read the audience here and to assign monolithic behavior to them, but it's not yet clear to me that this is warranted. As I've mentioned (in this thread?), there's a great chapter by CS Lewis in NETDV in which he basically says that all attempts by contemporary critics to mind-read him were wrong -- every single one. And actually, we have another example of the same phenomenon in this very thread! (details via PM on request) If it's difficult to impossible to mind-read people in one's own society, how much certitude can we ascribe to attempts to exhaustively describe the mental state of those in a society far removed from our own?



BTW, who says this was an honorable burial? According to Byron McCane (see here (http://members.tripod.com/enoch2112/ByronBurial.htm)), it was a rather dishonorable burial.

Fair enough, but don't you agree that it's probable that Joseph and Nicodemus acted as they did because they held Jesus as worthy of honor? I mean, their actions don't read to me as the sorts of things you'd expect if their position was "what a scoundrel and charlatan! Let's humiliate the sucker!" And if they were capable of holding Jesus in honor even after the shame of the cross and prior to the Resurrection, does that or does it not cause us to question the premise of TIF in question, by which we are led to believe that such a posture should have been impossible?


However, the spices brought to anoint Jesus would be seen as a way to give him some honor as this was an attempt to keep the body from the stench of decay for as long as possible. Clearly, both Nicodemus and the women who were coming to the tomb, sought to give Jesus some honor in however small capacity it might be. Remember though that this was done by followers seeking to give their leader whatever vestige of honor they could get. But by outsiders, this would be seen as no more than a desperate attempt rather than a legitimate claim to honor. But still, as far as imaginative (and rather extravagant) claims of divinity are concerned, it seems unlikely that such would hold water with any of these people, much less outsiders according to the circumstances.

My point wasn't that people would have concluded based on His burial that Jesus was honorable despite the cross; rather, it's that apparently, Nicodemus and Joseph felt that Jesus was honorable even after the shame of the cross and even before the vindication of the Resurrection.




Well, it wasn't quite right in that there was more to my presentation than that. You were right to some extent, but not exactly a prophet.:wink:


Touche!



But unless it's first acknlowdged that Jesus was God, it wouldn't be seen that Jesus was in control here. Rather, it would be seen that Jesus was a man doomed to die such a horrendously shameful death and that he foolishly accepted such a fate. Unless the deity of Jesus was presupposed (which would require something else), he wouldn't be seen as being master of his fate. As such, the claim wouldn't be recognized as legitimate, which is what this whole equation hinges upon.

Again, this just reads as very speculative to me, and I don't yet see what the speculation is based on. And again, it seems to me that you are indeed arguing that the accusers ought to have backed down or else Jesus' claim couldn't have been seen as legitimate. But I don't see that necessity implied in Malina.



As I've said, this doesn't fit with Malina's observations since crucifixion wasn't a measure of shame designed to put the victim back into compliance, but a final shameful doom of the most ignominious kind.

Again, I do think this is a good point. It's possible that Malina's chapter isn't really applicable here. I think that because it seems to fit with the portrayal of the trial in the Gospels, though, that it may be.




From the evidence Malina presents, it seems the answer is yes, with qualification. The conduct at the trials would have been seen as an implicit honor claim (not necessarily honorable conduct, as that relies on perception of others). But one would ask the question of if that implicit honor claim was valid, which the crucifixion event that followed would answer with a resounding no.

Again, I do not see this a necessary inference from Malina's chapter. In contrast, I am suggesting that someone could indeed have witnessed the trial and perceived Jesus as behaving honorably, by exactly the mechanism Malina suggests. If someone came to such a conclusion, the fact that the accusers followed through with their threat and crucified Him would hardly be surprisingly, but it wouldn't necessarily have invalidated the observer's assessment. Again, because the trial and crucifixion are part and parcel of the same process, it's unclear to me whether conclusions drawn based on the latter would necessarily have rebutted conclusions drawn based on the former.




But in the great context of it all, we have to ask why they saw him this way. The shame is acknowledged in Hebrews 12:2, but it was seen as a shame that was scorned because something greater (the ultimate vindication) would follow. From what can be told, they didn't perceive this for no reason, but rather because of the Resurrection, the ultimate vindication (which the TIF, as well as the whole of the Christian faith, rests upon).

From Jesus' point of view, yes; the scorn was endured because vindication would follow. But the authors saw Jesus' performance at the trial as honorable-in-itself. You may be right, though, that we can't look at it in isolation of the influence on their views of the Resurrection. Nevertheless, I don't read them to be saying that the cross nullified the honor he accumulated during the trial; they present the trial as having been an honorable performance. And all I am saying is that if others at the time could have viewed it that way, then perhaps premise #1 is not so cut-and-dried. And we have evidence that some people did view Jesus as retaining His honor even after the shameful death on the cross and even before the vindication of His Resurrection.

Again, I appreciate the discussion. I've made my point and I think you've done a good job making yours, so I may not prolong the discussion much further, but of course I still welcome your reply if you're interested in continuing the discussion.

Best regards,

-Jeff

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by jwarrend

It seems to me then that my original prediction is actually confirmed, then; in fact, you are saying that because the authorities didn't "back down" in light of Jesus' defiance, that therefore any honor gained in resisting power as He did was washed away by the shame accrued by the cross.

The problem I have with this is that Malina's analysis doesn't say anything about a necessity of successful resistance in order for gaining honor. It isn't stated implicitly or explicitly that, if you try to resist those in power when they try to wield pain or humiliation against you, that you only accrue honor if your defiance causes them to back off and leave you alone. In contrast, it is stated explicitly that if the audience perceived a person resisting power or humiliation to be in the right, then that could result in the person gaining honor as a result. And again, the fact that the Gospels present Jesus' conduct at the trial as honorable emphasizes that they felt this way as well (ie, it corroborates the interpretation of Malina's chapter that I am suggesting).

Do you have any substantiation to your assertion that the shame of the cross absolutely, positively would have overrode any honor He would have gained from the trial? That it is completely impossible and inconceivable that someone who witnessed the trial would have come away from it believing Jesus to have earned honor for Himself (and to feel that the net increase in honor was greater than the net loss of honor associated with the cross)? I think you're trying to mind-read the audience here and to assign monolithic behavior to them, but it's not yet clear to me that this is warranted. As I've mentioned (in this thread?), there's a great chapter by CS Lewis in NETDV in which he basically says that all attempts by contemporary critics to mind-read him were wrong -- every single one. And actually, we have another example of the same phenomenon in this very thread! (details via PM on request) If it's difficult to impossible to mind-read people in one's own society, how much certitude can we ascribe to attempts to exhaustively describe the mental state of those in a society far removed from our own?

Well, I admit I didn't quite understand what you meant by "backed down".

But like I've said before, the measures that Malina is referencing are obviously measures designed to shame one back into compliance with society. Crucifixion isn't designed that way. It is only designed to give someone a shameful death.

Also, as I've said, the substantiation for crucifixion as an extremely ignominious death is on JP's site (and I've presented some of it myself). But it seems your question is more along the lines of how I deduce from that that crucifixion would have overriden honor gained by resistance during the trial. Well, let me try to illustrate this with a rather limited analogy.

Let's say I win a gold medal at the Olympics in some sort of lifting event. I get honor and prestige for this (unfortunately, no cash). But then, shortly afterwards, one of the officials comes up and takes the medal away because they found out that I had used steroids to build up muscle. Now did the shame I suffered from having the medals stripped from me override the honor I had gotten from originally winning it?

Once again, this analogy is rather limited and will not correspond one-to-one with the situation here, but it nevertheless is a good illustrator.

Now, in a non-analogous form, I would answer that because honor was seen as a limited good in ancient times (as was all that was good, John Pilch and Bruce Malina in Handbook of Biblical Social Values, p. 123-4). As such, someone trying to get honor that they did not deserve, was frowned upon as selfish and rebellion against God (since deities were seen to be the ones who created good things in limited quantities). Now let's apply that to this situation. Jesus, by being defiant during his trials, made an implicit honor claim to be greater than those who accused him. With the concept of limited good (and the general importance of honor), such a claim would not be taken lightly and would be evaluated. Brought into this evaluation would be his dying a death as shameful as crucifixion, normally reserved for criminals and seditionists. Unless there was a vindication, there isn't really a good chance that he would have been seen as worthy of that honor.


Fair enough, but don't you agree that it's probable that Joseph and Nicodemus acted as they did because they held Jesus as worthy of honor? I mean, their actions don't read to me as the sorts of things you'd expect if their position was "what a scoundrel and charlatan! Let's humiliate the sucker!" And if they were capable of holding Jesus in honor even after the shame of the cross and prior to the Resurrection, does that or does it not cause us to question the premise of TIF in question, by which we are led to believe that such a posture should have been impossible?

As far as bringing the spices along, yes. As far as his actual burial is concerned, no. Of course Joseph and Nicodemus were sympathetic as it seems they were followers. But according to McCane, they're simply carrying out their duties as members of the Sanhedrin.

As I've already said, as followers, they're trying to give any vestige of honor to Jesus that they can. But without the Resurrection, can we really expect that they would have been on board with the resultant movement that claimed Jesus was deity despite this shameful death? Worthy of whatever small measure of honor they could give him? It seems that they did believe that. But without the Resurrection, worthy of being called a deity? Hardly.


My point wasn't that people would have concluded based on His burial that Jesus was honorable despite the cross; rather, it's that apparently, Nicodemus and Joseph felt that Jesus was honorable even after the shame of the cross and even before the vindication of the Resurrection.

Answered already.


Again, this just reads as very speculative to me, and I don't yet see what the speculation is based on. And again, it seems to me that you are indeed arguing that the accusers ought to have backed down or else Jesus' claim couldn't have been seen as legitimate. But I don't see that necessity implied in Malina.

Not so, per answer above.


Again, I do think this is a good point. It's possible that Malina's chapter isn't really applicable here. I think that because it seems to fit with the portrayal of the trial in the Gospels, though, that it may be.

As far as the trial is concerned, I've never disagreed with you and I have found it a rather interesting piece of information. But the factor is concerned with the crucifixion, not the trial beforehand.


Again, I do not see this a necessary inference from Malina's chapter. In contrast, I am suggesting that someone could indeed have witnessed the trial and perceived Jesus as behaving honorably, by exactly the mechanism Malina suggests. If someone came to such a conclusion, the fact that the accusers followed through with their threat and crucified Him would hardly be surprisingly, but it wouldn't necessarily have invalidated the observer's assessment. Again, because the trial and crucifixion are part and parcel of the same process, it's unclear to me whether conclusions drawn based on the latter would necessarily have rebutted conclusions drawn based on the former.

Once again, I refer you to the answer above. Due to such a death, the implicit honor claim would have been seen as invalid because clearly, Jesus did not deserve and honor greater than the Sanhedrin when he died the shameful death of criminals and seditionists.


From Jesus' point of view, yes; the scorn was endured because vindication would follow. But the authors saw Jesus' performance at the trial as honorable-in-itself. You may be right, though, that we can't look at it in isolation of the influence on their views of the Resurrection. Nevertheless, I don't read them to be saying that the cross nullified the honor he accumulated during the trial; they present the trial as having been an honorable performance. And all I am saying is that if others at the time could have viewed it that way, then perhaps premise #1 is not so cut-and-dried. And we have evidence that some people did view Jesus as retaining His honor even after the shameful death on the cross and even before the vindication of His Resurrection.

Well of course you shouldn't read them that way because that's not what they say. I'm just saying with known concepts of ANE civilization, it's not likely that Jesus' implicit honor claim would have remained intact.


Again, I appreciate the discussion. I've made my point and I think you've done a good job making yours, so I may not prolong the discussion much further, but of course I still welcome your reply if you're interested in continuing the discussion.

Well, it seems that for the most part we're just repeating ourselves. So this discussion probably won't continue much further.

[jwarrend]

Also, as I've said, the substantiation for crucifixion as an extremely ignominious death is on JP's site (and I've presented some of it myself). But it seems your question is more along the lines of how I deduce from that that crucifixion would have overriden honor gained by resistance during the trial. Well, let me try to illustrate this with a rather limited analogy.

Yes, you have hit upon precisely the question I am interested in. I don't find your analogy to be helpful at resolving the question, but I don't think you really need me to nitpick it to death. More important, I think, is that it's a reflection of how you see things, but I'm asking whether you are aware of something more authoritative and more persuasive as a way to arbitrate whether we can draw a definite conclusion about this question.



Now, in a non-analogous form, I would answer that because honor was seen as a limited good in ancient times (as was all that was good, John Pilch and Bruce Malina in Handbook of Biblical Social Values, p. 123-4). As such, someone trying to get honor that they did not deserve, was frowned upon as selfish and rebellion against God (since deities were seen to be the ones who created good things in limited quantities). Now let's apply that to this situation. Jesus, by being defiant during his trials, made an implicit honor claim to be greater than those who accused him. With the concept of limited good (and the general importance of honor), such a claim would not be taken lightly and would be evaluated.

Yes, all of this is what I've been saying all along; we agree up to here.



Brought into this evaluation would be his dying a death as shameful as crucifixion, normally reserved for criminals and seditionists. Unless there was a vindication, there isn't really a good chance that he would have been seen as worthy of that honor.


And here is precisely where I think you need to substantiate your case with something more. What is your basis for deciding that "there isn't a good chance"? And, "there isn't a good chance" isn't the same as "there is no chance". Is that an unintentional slip? I fully consider TIF to be a plausibility argument, and so speaking about what is possible or even probable is fine by me. But you're claiming it's a deductive argument, and thus are saying something more -- that we can be certain no one could have evaluated Jesus as net honorable after the trial and the cross. How do you know?



As I've already said, as followers, they're trying to give any vestige of honor to Jesus that they can. But without the Resurrection, can we really expect that they would have been on board with the resultant movement that claimed Jesus was deity despite this shameful death? Worthy of whatever small measure of honor they could give him? It seems that they did believe that. But without the Resurrection, worthy of being called a deity? Hardly.


Well, again, I think this is reasonable, but you're saying that TIF is about what is certain, not what is reasonable. I agree that it would be a stretch to say that someone who considered Jesus honorable even after the cross would have found that to be sufficient justification to start a movement proclaiming His deity. But TIF is saying that it would have been impossible for anyone to have esteemed Him as honorable after the cross. Clearly, that was not the case.



As far as the trial is concerned, I've never disagreed with you and I have found it a rather interesting piece of information. But the factor is concerned with the crucifixion, not the trial beforehand.


But again, you keep speaking as though the cross and the trial are separate or separable, which is something I dispute. As I said, it seems more reasonable for me to view them as a package deal. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that someone would treat them as completely separate data points -- eg, "Well, on the one hand, he behaved honorably at his trial, but on the other hand, he was executed shamefully...so, I guess taken on the whole, he was a shameful wretch". The cross was the outworking of the trial. If someone saw the trial (and we know quite a few people did) and decided that Jesus' conduct was honorable and that the accusers' conduct was shameful, that assessment wouldn't have been nullified simply because the accusers wielded their power to execute Christ. If the person concluded Jesus was in the right and the accusers were in the wrong, they would have viewed the execution as an inappropriate exercise of power on the part of the accusers. The conclusion of which side they were on wouldn't have changed simply because the situation came to a head.

Again, it just isn't clear to me yet that success is necessary for defiance to earn honor. Surely you have seen "Braveheart"? The view of the Scots in that film was that "we don't need to beat the English, we just need to fight them". William Wallace's struggle against the British resulted in his execution, yet a person more venerated is probably not to be found in Scottish history. Certainly, we could question whether 13th century Scotland is a good analogy for 1st century Palestine. (I think it's certainly a fair bit better than a modern day Olympiad!)



Well of course you shouldn't read them that way because that's not what they say. I'm just saying with known concepts of ANE civilization, it's not likely that Jesus' implicit honor claim would have remained intact.


Just a minor point that I want to clear up, because I've seen others in this forum make this mistake. The Greco-Roman world during the NT era was not part of the Ancient Near East. The NT era was part of "Classical Antiquity". The ANE ends with Alexander's conquests of the Middle East.

Best,

-Jeff

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by jwarrend

Yes, you have hit upon precisely the question I am interested in. I don't find your analogy to be helpful at resolving the question, but I don't think you really need me to nitpick it to death. More important, I think, is that it's a reflection of how you see things, but I'm asking whether you are aware of something more authoritative and more persuasive as a way to arbitrate whether we can draw a definite conclusion about this question.

Well, that's why I brought up the whole concept of limited good. No I'd prefer for people not to nitpick analogies as its rather annoying. Analogies aren't meant to convey issues in a one-to-one correspondence. Well, the scholars who have studied these matters for years have presented their conclusions. Maybe Holding might know, but I don't think anyone has organized their thoughts like this to say that any honor gained by Christ during his trial would have been overriden by the crucifxion. I've just combined a few concepts here that the scholars have found amidst the ancient world.


Yes, all of this is what I've been saying all along; we agree up to here.

Well, that much is good.


And here is precisely where I think you need to substantiate your case with something more. What is your basis for deciding that "there isn't a good chance"? And, "there isn't a good chance" isn't the same as "there is no chance". Is that an unintentional slip? I fully consider TIF to be a plausibility argument, and so speaking about what is possible or even probable is fine by me. But you're claiming it's a deductive argument, and thus are saying something more -- that we can be certain no one could have evaluated Jesus as net honorable after the trial and the cross. How do you know?

I simply say this with what I have learned about the ancient world. Paul recognized in 1 Corinthians 1:18 that preaching the crucifixion is folly precisely because of its shame. Hebrews 12:2 acknowledges the shame of the cross. The Jews would have found it extremely shameful due to the whole thing about the curse of those who hang on a tree (Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:23. Justin Martyr in his first Apology 13:4:


They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God

Celsus describes Jesus as one who was "bound in the most ignominious fashion" and "executed in a shameful way". According to Martin Hengel's Crucifixion, Augustine preseved an oracle of Apollo that described Jesus as "a god who died in delusions...executed in the prime of life by the worst of deaths, a death bound with iron" (p. 4). Later on, on p. 19, Hengel reveals information about a piece of graffiti depicting a man supplicated before a crucified figure with a donkey's head sub-titled, "Alexamenos worships god." On the same page, Hengel references a quote by Walter Bauer which says:


The enemies of Christianity always referred to the disgracefulness of the death of Jesus with great emphasis and malicious pleasure. A god or son of god dying on a cross! That was enough to put paid to the new religion.

David DeSilva, in his Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity on p. 51:


No member of the Jewish community or the Greco-Roman society would have come to faith or joined the Christian movement without first accepting that God's perspective on what kind of behavior merits honor differs exceedingly from the perspective of human beings, since the message about Jesus is that both the Jewish and Gentile leaders of Jerusalem evaluated Jesus, his convictions and his deeds as meriting a shameful death, but God overturned their evaluation of Jesus by raising him from the dead and seating him at God's own right hand as Lord.

N.T. Wright, in his Resurrection of the Son of God on pp. 543, 559, and 563:


The argument at this point procceds in three stages. (i) Early Christianity was thoroughly messianic, shaping itself around the belief that Jesus was God's Messiah, Israel's Messiah. (ii) But Messiahship in Judaism, such as it was, never envisaged someone doing the sort of things Jesus had done, let alone suffering the fate he suffered. (iii) The historian must therefore ask why the early Christians made this claim about Jesus, and why they reordered their lives accordingly.

Jewish beliefs about a coming Messiah, and about the deeds such a figure would be expected to accomplish, came in various shapes and sizes, but they did not include a shameful death which left the Roman empire celebrating its usual victory.

Something has happened to belief in a coming Messiah...It has neither been abandoned or simply reaffirmed wholesale. It has been redefined around Jesus. Why? To this question, of course, the early Christians reply with one voice: we believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah because he was raised bodily from the dead. Nothing else will do.

This is all from http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html#one.

From what we can tell of the ancient world, the situation as you see it doesn't really seem plausible.


Well, again, I think this is reasonable, but you're saying that TIF is about what is certain, not what is reasonable. I agree that it would be a stretch to say that someone who considered Jesus honorable even after the cross would have found that to be sufficient justification to start a movement proclaiming His deity. But TIF is saying that it would have been impossible for anyone to have esteemed Him as honorable after the cross. Clearly, that was not the case.

But anyone that could really be considered as still seeing Jesus as honorable after such a death were followers. According to what we know, the outsiders would have seen the attempts at trying to give Jesus honor as desperate attempts to grab on to any vestige of honor. Outside of such a rather restricted group, no one would have really conceived of Jesus maintaining any honor through this affair.


But again, you keep speaking as though the cross and the trial are separate or separable, which is something I dispute. As I said, it seems more reasonable for me to view them as a package deal. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that someone would treat them as completely separate data points -- eg, "Well, on the one hand, he behaved honorably at his trial, but on the other hand, he was executed shamefully...so, I guess taken on the whole, he was a shameful wretch". The cross was the outworking of the trial. If someone saw the trial (and we know quite a few people did) and decided that Jesus' conduct was honorable and that the accusers' conduct was shameful, that assessment wouldn't have been nullified simply because the accusers wielded their power to execute Christ. If the person concluded Jesus was in the right and the accusers were in the wrong, they would have viewed the execution as an inappropriate exercise of power on the part of the accusers. The conclusion of which side they were on wouldn't have changed simply because the situation came to a head.

Again, it just isn't clear to me yet that success is necessary for defiance to earn honor. Surely you have seen "Braveheart"? The view of the Scots in that film was that "we don't need to beat the English, we just need to fight them". William Wallace's struggle against the British resulted in his execution, yet a person more venerated is probably not to be found in Scottish history. Certainly, we could question whether 13th century Scotland is a good analogy for 1st century Palestine. (I think it's certainly a fair bit better than a modern day Olympiad!)

As far as the issue here is concerned, they are separate and separable. As your reference to Malina was referencing defiance of measures of shame, it would be relevant for the trial, but not for the crucifixion which was not truly a measure of shame used to bring people back into compliance, but a final status degradation ritual designed to remove all honor from the person suffering it.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be that Jesus acted honorably but then lost it at the crucifixion. Rather, it would be that in the trial, Jesus made the implicit honor claim to be superior than the Sanhedrin. That claim would be evaluated as it was a rather strong claim. But the crucifixion would do anything but lend credence to the idea that Jesus was worthy of such honor.

Actually, the accusers didn't wield the power to execute Jesus, they had to get Pilate to (as such the later point about how people could have seen it is void). But do you suppose that someone who saw the trial, didn't hear how the whole affair with Jesus eventually ended up? If so, it seems that the evaluation would be that the implicit honor claim was a rather sickeningly over-reaching one. Under the concept of limited good, Jesus would have been seen as one who was trying not only get honor that wasn't his, but a lot of that undeserved honor.

Remember, the act of defiance didn't necessarily give the defier (I'm not sure if that's even a word) honor, but showed that that person was making an implicit honor claim. That claim would then be evaluated by others who would see if that claim was legitimate. Also remember that the whole concept of gaining honor through defiance is dependent on the perception of others (as Malina makes note of). It wouldn't really be safe to simply assume that Jesus would have been seen as acting honorably and then suffering a shameful death. It would have been more accurate if you had said that he had made an implicit honor claim during this affair. Once again I have to reiterate that the claim would have to be evaluated and the crucifixion would no doubt figure in to the equation.


Just a minor point that I want to clear up, because I've seen others in this forum make this mistake. The Greco-Roman world during the NT era was not part of the Ancient Near East. The NT era was part of "Classical Antiquity". The ANE ends with Alexander's conquests of the Middle East.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Well, Jeff, it seems we're at a basic stand still. Apart from my presenting of evidence I've already referred you too, this has basically been a restatement of things said a couple posts ago. So I think I'm going to bow out right now. Thanks for the questions.

[jwarrend]

Fair enough. I appreciate the discussion!

Best,

-Jeff

[element771]

I think you'll be good for maybe 2 more messages before you putter out. Don't you have any little old ladies' houses you need to foreclose on? :wink:

Good call...can you PM next weeks lotto numbers?:teeth:

[LGM]

The OP does a very good job presenting evidence that supports the conclusion that the conflicting mythologies and inane theologies of what is commonly called 'Christianity', were never carefully, centrally planned by a team of smart, religious marketers trying to optimize the appeal of a coherent and clear message to the broadest audience possible. Did anyone ever claim that was the case? No, that’s just another inane strawman the OP is flailing about trying to skewer with his brilliant fallacious appeals.

The fallacious conclusion is made that one would adopt this shameful, vile idiocy.

Thankfully, there is always a ready supply of foolish, gullible, superstitious dolts desperately looking for some new age religion, as the countless examples of history, and the Tacitus quote attests. And it doesn’t really matter how inane and conflicted it is, or how shameful some armchair 21st century apologist claims it is. People believe stupid things. Especially if it allows them to imagine themselves the specially selected immortal defenders of the one true god who is coming to rule over his ‘kingdom’ with them as his lucky immortal troops.

It also explains why it was seen as a vile heresy by both the orthodox Jews of that time, and the intellectual leaders of the Roman empire. Supposedly their were thousands of people who would have allegedly witnessed and known about all these miraculous events and supernatural happenings all associated with this alleged god-man, but clearly these people did NOT convert to these cults in large numbers, and the inane myths have people in Jesus own hometown going ‘ho hum’, to his alleged magical, god powers.

No, these cults did not attract large numbers of converts, either Roman or Jewish in Jerusalem in the first century. They don’t even rate a reliable mention by Josephus or Pliny. Josephus spends plenty of time detailing the Essenses and their religion and culture, but never spends any time on the alleged wildly successful new ‘Christian’ cult, whose god-man did more miracles, in front of more people, then any boring Essene ever did.

It is only centuries later, DESPERTATE for any external historical mention of Jesus, that a Christian copyist forger, feels the urge to insert the Josephus interpolation. How sad and how typical of Christianity, needing to lie and forge to support their gospels which make no sense.

The ONLY thing that makes these countless, conflicting first and second century messianic/apocalyptic cults a success, is when ONE specific version and set of theologies is selected, franchised and patronized by the rulers of the Roman empire in the third century. That IS IT. Once it has political power and patronage, this new ‘orthodox’ Christianity, proceeds to persecute all other religions, including other Christian ‘heresies’, and quickly establishes itself as a monopoly state religion whose leaders have prestige, wealth and political power.

Yes, it's clear that the claims of Christianity are silly and inane. It is clear that it's sloppy theological tripe and myth is simply some Jewish midrash tacked onto traditional Jewish theology and prophecy with a dash of gnostic, mystery savior cult, a pinch of inane apocalyptic blather, and a huge scoop of co-opted pagan rituals and holidays. The OP has done an excellent job showing that Christian theology and mythology was not well planned or coordinated, and that is why it wasn’t a great success until AFTER it was given political power and patronage.

Credulous, superstitious people have great capacity for being indoctrinated to believe the most silly myths imaginable, and the majority of people who want to survive and benefit in a society, will readily adopt the official state religion, and the religion of their parents. Christianity certainly proves that true and that it is why it is The Possible Religion.

Ho hum.

[Rayado]

LGM, are you by chance a screenwriter for the History Channel? Sure you didn't do any consulting on Zeitgeist?

Are you also going to say that the references to the historical Jesus in Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Suetonius were also faked? And will you claim that the Arabic translation of Josephus was also forged?

[jpholding]

LGM, are you by chance a screenwriter for the History Channel? Sure you didn't do any consulting on Zeitgeist?

I think the poor chap has gone absolutely bonkers. He's been reduced to repeating himself endlessly. :lolo: And he seems to have lost his mind somewhere:


Why don't you draw me one of your wannabe smurf cartoons, where one of your little buxom forest creatures is calling Tacitus a liar?

:huh: Who's calling Tacitus a liar, old boy? I'm calling YOU a positively godawful interpreter of his social world and his commentary.



1. Christianity is just too shameful and inane for ANYONE to believe in.
2. People believed it.
3. Therefore everything in the gospels has to be TRUE.

Sorry it's not that simple for you, m'boy, but we do have nice parting gifts for you -- a year's supply of Hiney Smooch (TM) Lip Balm.





Nice try talking to the Brick Wall, Tolk. :lolo: It's fairly useless, though, because he needs postmodernism feelgood Christianity to be true; otherwise he'll collapse.

[LGM]

I think the poor chap has gone absolutely bonkers. He's been reduced to repeating himself endlessly. :lolo: And he seems to have lost his mind somewhere:

More of that famous 'Holding' intellectualism.

Wouldn't this be a good time to draw a cartoon of me burping?



:huh: Who's calling Tacitus a liar, old boy?

That would be you apologist wannabe.



I'm calling YOU a positively godawful interpreter of his social world and his commentary.

I'm not interpreting ANYTHING nitwit, I'm simply taking him at HIS WORD.

That people in ROME believed and did all kinds of things he called HIDEOUS and SHAMEFUL.

Like being drooling initiates of the latest vile superstition called 'Christianity'.

So that PROVES that SOME people DID think the latest, inane, messianic-savior-mystery cult was HIDEOUS and SHAMEFUL, yet some small number of NUTJOBS still joined in the fun, just like SO MANY OTHER hideous and shameful things that these Roman 'TRACTOR PULL' crowd did. LOTS of other things were SHAMEFUL and still BELIEVED and done by these same folks.

It seems you have SELF REFUTED...I find it quite amusing.

Your mouthpiece Tolk is long on BLATHER and short on any EVIDENCE that says otherwise.




Sorry it's not that simple for you, m'boy, but we do have nice parting gifts for you -- a year's supply of Hiney Smooch ™ Lip Balm.

It's exactly that simple card catalog cleaner. I realize you have to dress this pig up in a tutu and lipstick so your teenage fanclub will see you as brilliant, but I like to cut right to the chase.

Your logic and inference are FLAWED. Your premise is unsupported and your conclusion doesn't even follow from it.

But hey, I realize they don't require librarians to take logic in college.



Nice try talking to the Brick Wall, Tolk. :lolo: It's fairly useless, though, because he needs postmodernism feelgood Christianity to be true; otherwise he'll collapse.

What are you babbling about now nitwit. I have no idea what 'postmodernism feelgood Christianity' is, and I certainly don't NEED it to be true. Christianity can be ANYTHING someone wants it to be. It has become a MEANINGLESS term as flexible as a champion gymnast.

Here's a newsflash, YOU ain't the authority on what Christianity is or isn't. And your invisible friend in the sky ain't around as a final arbiter, is he? Oops...roll your own Christianity is alive and well!

[jwarrend]

What are you babbling about now nitwit. I have no idea what 'postmodernism feelgood Christianity' is, and I certainly don't NEED it to be true.

I believe that I am the putative "brick wall" in JP's remarks, though his observation is otherwise as inapplicable to me as it is to you.

-Jeff

[LGM]

I believe that I am the putative "brick wall" in JP's remarks, though his observation is otherwise as inapplicable to me as it is to you.


Ahhh...I see.

Don't agree with some of Holding's famous, fallacious special pleading, and poor logic, and you become a 'brick wall'.

What's amusing is watching all of his mindlless, fawning, teenage fan club that will defend ANYTHING the librarian burps out.

I give him HUGE kudos for that. He's got these pups on a tight leash.

If only they had jobs and could support Tekton with a little scratch, because I do give JP kudos for being the one who actually has the mind and skills to make these lame arguments that they haplessly mimic.

[jwarrend]

Don't agree with some of Holding's famous, fallacious special pleading, and poor logic, and you become a 'brick wall'.

Well, in fairness to JP, I'm sure that he feels that reasons exist above and beyond the mere act of disagreement that justify such an epithet. Obviously, I think it's an inaccurate characterization but it's presumably not much of a surprise that I would feel that way.



What's amusing is watching all of his mindlless, fawning, teenage fan club that will defend ANYTHING the librarian burps out.

I don't know if that's entirely fair. I do see, in my discussion with TolkeinFan, for instance, an attempt to engage the pertinent scholarly literature and draw warranted conclusions based on it. The question of course becomes whether the literature being surveyed is the right literature to be discussing to resolve the question at hand, whether it is a sufficiently comprehensive survey of the pertinent literature, and whether it is being handled fairly and accurately. I do think there's an implicit trust in JP's research such that the answers to all of these sub-questions are assumed to be "yes" where his articles and arguments are concerned. But even if that's the case, and even if it were the case that the answer to one or more of the parts of my question was actually "no", that doesn't make one mindless, but merely (overly?) trusting. Mindless would, in my view, necessitate acceptance without any questioning, critical evaluation, or independent source-checking. But I don't see that being the case here, at least in the posts in this thread that I've read (which is not nearly all of them).

-Jeff

[jpholding]

More of that famous 'Holding' intellectualism.

Wouldn't this be a good time to draw a cartoon of me burping?

There are probably enough of those around already. Besides, we have the Real Thing (TM) here. :rasberry:



That would be you apologist wannabe.

I'm not interpreting ANYTHING nitwit, I'm simply taking him at HIS WORD.

Ah I see. You're reading him like a Fundamentalist (TM). That's about right. Have you considered actually trying to understand Roman society a wee bit before you do that? It might help with this slight retardation problem you're having. :hehe:



That people in ROME believed and did all kinds of things he called HIDEOUS and SHAMEFUL.

Like being drooling initiates of the latest vile superstition called 'Christianity'.

I answered this point once already. Did you plan on responding to that, or did you feel that it was sufficient to restate your original premise in the hopes that the rebuttal will go away?


It seems you have SELF REFUTED...I find it quite amusing.

You find a lot of things amusing, including razing orphanages to build new munitions development plants, apparently.


Your mouthpiece Tolk is long on BLATHER and short on any EVIDENCE that says otherwise.

Sadly, this is a definition of "evidence" you use that is unknown to most intelligent people. :lolo:



Your logic and inference are FLAWED. Your premise is unsupported and your conclusion doesn't even follow from it.

You're burping out stereotyped phrases and canards rather than actually arguing. Of course, I understand why -- you're not here for debate, but for the nachos. Right, Georgie? :kiss:

Anyway, you sure haven't come up with any new schticks this past year. Could you try again?

[Add Homonym]

Astrology, Homoeopathy, Christianity.

Spot the odd one out.

A. Christianity. Because it's unfalsifiable, even smart people can believe it.

[lilpixieofterror]

Astrology, Homoeopathy, Christianity.

Spot the odd one out.

A. Christianity. Because it's unfalsifiable, even smart people can believe it.

I see the stupid person is posting again. You do know that even smart people are dedicated to Astrology, right? :lol:

[jpholding]

Astrology, Homoeopathy, Christianity.

Spot the odd one out.

A. Christianity. Because it's unfalsifiable, even smart people can believe it.

Excuse me, but only LGM has a permit to belch here.