Impossible Faith?

[Ratnat]

This topic came up in a discussion with LilPixieofterror.

JP Holding has an article called "The Impossible Faith" on his site alleging several things he feels should not have allowed Christianity to thrive if it wasn't true. Although several other authors have refuted his claims and Holding has responded with his usual style, LilPixieofterror still wants to see me attempt to refute myself....so here is my 2 cents.

For the sake of focus, I will deal with each of his points individually. I expect any arguments to be against my argument and not other authors refutations.

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

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?

Essentially, Holding is putting forward an argument that a crucified man/messiah was not expected and would not have been acceptable to the Jews.(and others) He cites N.T. Wright...

N. T. Wright makes these points in Resurrection of the Son of God [543, 559, 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY REFUTATION OF THE ABOVE POINT

The killing of a just man in a shameful way, who will return to judge in the end was a belief in Judaism prior to supposed events of the Gospel. In the first part of my refutation, I will use Scripture to prove my point.

Wisdom Literature was popular among certain sects and in Alexandria it was extremely popular.

Here are a few verses from the second chapter of "Wisdom of Solomon" which seem like a rough draft of the gospel narrative.

12
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15
Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways.
16
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
21
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22
And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward.
23
For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.

In chapter 3

1
But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them.
2
They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction
3
and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace.
4
For if before men, indeed, they be punished, yet is their hope full of immortality;
5
Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, because God tried them and found them worthy of himself.
6
As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself.
7
In the time of their visitation they shall shine, and shall dart about as sparks through stubble;
8
They shall judge nations and rule over peoples, and the LORD shall be their King forever.
9
Those who trust in him shall understand truth, and the faithful shall abide with him in love: Because grace and mercy are with his holy ones, and his care is with the elect.
10
But the wicked shall receive a punishment to match their thoughts, since they neglected justice and forsook the LORD.
11
For he who despises wisdom and instruction is doomed. Vain is their hope, fruitless are their labors, and worthless are their works.
12
Their wives are foolish and their children wicked; accursed is their brood.
13
Yes, blessed is she who, childless and undefiled, knew not transgression of the marriage bed; she shall bear fruit at the visitation of souls.
14
So also the eunuch whose hand wrought no misdeed, who held no wicked thoughts against the LORD- For he shall be given fidelity's choice reward and a more gratifying heritage in the LORD'S temple.

In Chapter 5

1
Then shall the just one with great assurance confront his oppressors who set at nought his labors.
2
Seeing this, they shall be shaken with dreadful fear, and amazed at the unlooked-for salvation.
3
They shall say among themselves, rueful and groaning through anguish of spirit: "This is he whom once we held as a laughingstock and as a type for mockery,
4
fools that we were! His life we accounted madness, and his death dishonored.
5
See how he is accounted among the sons of God; how his lot is with the saints!
6
We, then, have strayed from the way of truth, and the light of justice did not shine for us, and the sun did not rise for us.
7
We had our fill of the ways of mischief and of ruin; we journeyed through impassable deserts, but the way of the LORD we knew not.
8
What did our pride avail us? What have wealth and its boastfulness afforded us?
9
All of them passed like a shadow and like a fleeting rumor;
10
Like a ship traversing the heaving water, of which, when it has passed, no trace can be found, no path of its keel in the waves.
...

15
But the just live forever, and in the LORD is their recompense, and the thought of them is with the Most High.
16
Therefore shall they receive the splendid crown, the beauteous diadem, from the hand of the LORD- For he shall shelter them with his right hand, and protect them with his arm.
17
He shall take his zeal for armor and he shall arm creation to requite the enemy;
18
He shall don justice for a breastplate and shall wear sure judgment for a helmet;
19
He shall take invincible rectitude as a shield
20
and whet his sudden anger for a sword, And the universe shall war with him against the foolhardy.
21
Well-aimed shafts of lightnings shall go forth and from the clouds as from a well-drawn bow shall leap to the mark;
22
and as from his sling, wrathful hailstones shall be hurled. The water of the sea shall be enraged against them and the streams shall abruptly overflow;
23
A mighty wind shall confront them and a tempest winnow them out; Thus lawlessness shall lay the whole earth waste and evildoing overturn the thrones of potentates.

As you can see, this pre-christian Jewish book contains the blueprint for a large part of Christian theology. There is more, but it is late.

[Carpedm9587]

Rat -

I would add that much of JPH's approach suffers from two major flaws: the first is the assumption of rational behavior. Much of his argument reduces to "reasonable people wouldn't X."

But nowhere can he support or defend the assumption. Beliefs spring up at the hands of both reasonable and unreasonable people all of the time. Some of them succeed.

The second error he makes is the assumption that success is itself an indicator of truth. By that measure, most of the ancient polytheisms should be judged "true." They succeeded for far longer than has Christianity.

At least, these are two things I see and have yet to hear a solid explanation of why these assumptions are valid, or how it is I'm misunderstanding the claims.

I look forward to some of your posts. Who knows, you might even attract the great JPH himself and we can be treated to more of his seemingly endless verbal abuse.

Michel

[LGM]

This topic came up in a discussion with LilPixieofterror.

JP Holding has an article called "The Impossible Faith" on his site alleging several things he feels should not have allowed Christianity to thrive if it wasn't true.

The ‘thing’ that caused ‘Christianity’ to ‘thrive’, was the same ‘thing’ that consolidated it into a single franchise; the power and patronage of the Roman Empire.

There are plenty of early forms of messianic/apocalyptic cults that have NOT survived because they lost out on that great 4th century lottery. These Nicea lottery losers are now called ‘heresies’.

Essentially, Holding is putting forward an argument that a crucified man/messiah was not expected and would not have been acceptable to the Jews.(and others) He cites N.T. Wright...

Garsh…was a bumbling, inept creator god who can’t police his own garden of Eden acceptable to the Jews? It’s amazing how if repeated over and over, silly, superstitious stories become historical facts and make perfect sense to children who are indoctrinated to believe them.

[B]N. T. Wright makes these points in Resurrection of the Son of God [543, 559, 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.

Early messianic/apocalyptic cults shaped themselves around the coming end of the world, and various forms of mythical savior and intermediary gods that would protect their subscribers. “Messiah” is merely an eschatological, mythical character that is to be expected at the pending end of times in all his glory, based on the oracles of Daniel.
The epistles assigned to Paul rather support a mythical son of God. Paul's Jesus is not of the sinful flesh, he’s not the Jesus of Galilee you read about in Mark’s gospel, but rather a supernatural intermediary, and alien to corruption.

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.

LOL
There is no ‘one voice’ replying to any rhetorical questions being posed by N.T. Wright. N. T. Wright has no idea what various subscribers to the countless messianic cults of early first century, and before, ‘believed’ about their savior gods. Their voices are SILENT, their written testimony does not EXIST for him to examine. All he can examine are the sacred musings of those stamped ORTHODOX by the Roman Empire. Those are the only ones that were copied, interpolated and forged as required down through the centuries to support a SINGLE orthodox Christology and forged history to support the mythology of Jesus of Galilee.

The founder of the primary sect of Christianity that the NT is based on, never claims to have seen any Jesus of Galilee crucified by Romans and raised from the dead in Jerusalem. He never claims to have ever met any earthly Jesus. His entire ministry is based on his ‘visions’(a.k.a dreams) and his interpretation of Jewish scriptures (a.k.a. Daniel)

Humans are creative and superstitious beings who live in ever evolving, social political nations and cultures. They like to read superstitious stories, and then take bits and pieces of them, add some new stuff and make up new stories. That’s how religion evolves over time. The dominant form of Christianity that flourished in Europe after the 4th century was Roman Catholicism because that is what was franchised, authorized and patronized by those in power.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I would add that much of JPH's approach suffers from two major flaws: the first is the assumption of rational behavior. Much of his argument reduces to "reasonable people wouldn't X."

Not so much 'reasonable' people, as 'people who lived in first century palastine.' whether they would have been reasonable or not is largely irrevelent.

The second error he makes is the assumption that success is itself an indicator of truth. .

This is a complete misrepresentation of his arguemnt. Nowhere does he say that success is a measure of truth. Rather his claim is that social factors would have made it impossible for a religion like Christianity to succeed unless it were true.

By that measure, most of the ancient polytheisms should be judged "true." They succeeded for far longer than has Christianity

Only if there are social factors that would prevent them being accepted and lasting so long. Actually just the oppeset, I see, as the social system changed, most of them fizzled out.

[Carpedm9587]

Not so much 'reasonable' people, as 'people who lived in first century palastine.' whether they would have been reasonable or not is largely irrevelent.

The point remains, STAL. the assumption is that we can know what a particular people of a particular culture will do at a particular time - that people in such a culture COULD not act outside of that cultural bound. But cultural shift and even cultural revolution happens throughout history. People revolt, revise, and shift the cultural norm - sometimes in a matter of a few months or years.

The assumption is unfounded.

This is a complete misrepresentation of his arguemnt. Nowhere does he say that success is a measure of truth. Rather his claim is that social factors would have made it impossible for a religion like Christianity to succeed unless it were true.

And the difference is...?

The argument reduces to, "it has to be true because it succeeded." The qualifier "and it would have been unlikely to given the cultural norm" is merely a resort to the first error. Furthermore, "unlikely" does not prove something is "absolutely true," which the inerrantist/absolutist is usually claiming.

Only if there are social factors that would prevent them being accepted and lasting so long. Actually just the oppeset, I see, as the social system changed, most of them fizzled out.

This once again begs the question, as far as I can see. And still has nothing to do with "truth." It merely asserts that a phenomenon that has the right mix of social factors to make it appeal to a population is likely to succeed. OK - granted.

Now what exactly did we prove...?

Michel

[LGM]

This is a complete misrepresentation of his arguemnt. Nowhere does he say that success is a measure of truth. Rather his claim is that social factors would have made it impossible for a religion like Christianity to succeed unless it were true.

That's the same thing.

Holding's argument is nothing more than special pleading.
The apostle Paul invented his own brand of Christianity without ever having met or witnessed any ressurected Christ in the flesh.

Social factors made it unlikely for many people to adopt certain religious beliefs, both then and now. And social factors make new religious beliefs appealing to others, so they adopt them, both then and now.

It's simply the evolution of religion. And no amount of Holding or N.T. Wright holding their hands up and yelling 'Stop! It's impossible! Unless every word of it is absolutely true! "....makes any of it 'true'. It just helps them rationalize their irrational beliefs in a myth.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

The point remains, STAL. the assumption is that we can know what a particular people of a particular culture will do at a particular time - that people in such a culture COULD not act outside of that cultural bound.

Of course they could. Christianity is one such example of how they could. The question isnt could they, but why would they? Although indviduals sometimes decied to revolt against the cultural norm simply on principal, mass groups almost never do so without a reason.

But cultural shift and even cultural revolution happens throughout history. People revolt, revise, and shift the cultural norm - sometimes in a matter of a few months or years.

Yes, but I remind you when they do so, they do so for a reason. People turnd against the cultural norm to join Christianity, why? JP has an answer(it was true). Whats yours?

Furthermore, "unlikely" does not prove something is "absolutely true," which the inerrantist/absolutist is usually claiming.

Fair enough. But even if we grant that Christianity(or any other movement) was 'unlikely'(as opposed to 'impossible') to succeed, we need to ask ourselves the critical question: why did it succeed anyway? AFAICT the best answer to that question with regards to Christianity is that it was true. Do you have a better one?

It merely asserts that a phenomenon that has the right mix of social factors to make it appeal to a population is likely to succeed. OK - granted.

And conversly, a phenomenon that has the wrong mix of social factors to make it unappealing to a population is unlikely to succeed.

[LGM]

Yes, but I remind you when they do so, they do so for a reason. People turnd against the cultural norm to join Christianity, why? JP has an answer(it was true). Whats yours?

Because they were told if they did believe whatever some apocalyptic/messianic preacher was pedaling...things would go well for them in the end times and the after-life...which were gonna happen any day now...

...oops...I guess that wasn't 'true' either.

pssst...btw...it's still the same reason people buy into the same baloney today...

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Because they were told if they did believe whatever some apocalyptic/messianic preacher was pedaling...things would go well for them in the end times and the after-life...which were gonna happen any day now...

...oops...I guess that wasn't 'true' either.
...

Actually as a preterist, I believe it was going to happen 'any day' from when Christianity first started, and did.

[Carpedm9587]

Of course they could. Christianity is one such example of how they could. The question isn't could they, but why would they? Although individuals sometimes decide to revolt against the cultural norm simply on principal, mass groups almost never do so without a reason.

And the argument claims that the only viable reason is "it was true." History proves that one pretty much false.

Yes, but I remind you when they do so, they do so for a reason. People turned against the cultural norm to join Christianity, why? JP has an answer(it was true). Whats yours?

It is also simply possible that the Christian story hit on a powerfully coercive and appealing message for the population in that time: a loving god, saves people from their sins, grant eternal life, and none of it can be validated until after you're dead - so go ahead and take your chances.

And all of this completely ignores the power of highly charismatic people to sway others. Look around you, STAL. We have people flocking to anything with a pulse that shows assertiveness and leadership. You think human nature has changed that dramatically in 2,000 years? History would seem to suggest otherwise.

Fair enough. But even if we grant that Christianity(or any other movement) was 'unlikely'(as opposed to 'impossible') to succeed, we need to ask ourselves the critical question: why did it succeed anyway? AFAICT the best answer to that question with regards to Christianity is that it was true. Do you have a better one?

Already responded to.

And conversely, a phenomenon that has the wrong mix of social factors to make it unappealing to a population is unlikely to succeed.

Yep. Granted. Unfortunately, STAL, "unlikely" and "impossible" are not the same thing. We humans have a nasty tendency to do the unlikely more often than people tend to acknowledge or appreciate. Humanity does not operate according to purely predictable social or cultural rules. Just when you think the culture suggests people will do X, they do Y. Happens all of the time. And amazingly enough - sometimes it happens without a lot of rationality behind it.

IMO, JPH's argument - and the entire premise that we can make definitive statements about what is true/false based on how people behave is ludicrous. It's the worst sort of tripe.

It attempts to do with sociology what some try to do with historical verification: apply the concepts differently because we're trying to defend a preconceived notion or theology. It is, in effect, a case of special pleading.

Michel

P.S. I do have to admit I much prefer having this discussion with you, however, because you seem to be one of the rare few that has ingested the argument without ingesting the dialectic style. So kudos to you!

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

P.S. I do have to admit I much prefer having this discussion with you, however, because you seem to be one of the rare few that has ingested the argument without ingesting the dialectic style. So kudos to you!

Thanks. I'm actually off the church right now. But I will get back to you.

cheers.

[LGM]

Actually as a preterist, I believe it was going to happen 'any day' from when Christianity first started, and did.

Ahhh yes....'preterism'...the amusing rationalization that the end of the world, as predicted by the apocalyptic cults of the first century, has already happened...

...you just weren't paying attention.

[Carpedm9587]

Thanks. I'm actually off the church right now. But I will get back to you.

cheers.

I'd join you at church, but I'm afraid I'm stuck in my hedonistic priorities. So I guess I'll have to settle for cleaning the garage.

Actually - I'm heading out for the day - so I'll look for your comments tonight or tomorrow.

Michel

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

And the argument claims that the only viable reason is "it was true." History proves that one pretty much false.

Not necessarly. Although I would say that was the case with Christianity.

It is also simply possible that the Christian story hit on a powerfully coercive and appealing message for the population in that time: a loving god, saves people from their sins, grant eternal life, and none of it can be validated until after you're dead - so go ahead and take your chances.

Actually, lots of elements of Christian belief, that there was a teacher named Jesus, who was crucified, and buried in Jerusalem, that there was an empty were readily verifyable for the earliest Christians. , in fact, when the Apostles first started preaching in Jerusalem, there would have been hundreds(if not thousands) of witnesses to these events.

And it was these things that the Apostels apealed to in attempting to gather followers. The promise of forgiveness or Heaven(or conversly the threat of hell) were never used as evangelism tools. That came later.

And all of this completely ignores the power of highly charismatic people to sway others.

Unforuntily carpe, charasma can only tak a person so far. If you try to convince people of something fundemintally opposed to the ideas engraned in them, they wont have it. Even movements that seem a ridiculous(such as Scientology) are at least agreeable to how most people think.

That is, unless, of course, they have something substansive to support their claims.

Look around you, STAL. We have people flocking to anything with a pulse that shows assertiveness and leadership.

You forgot to add "and agrees to their pre-concieved notions." How do you think politicians get elected? It's not by charisma alone(well unless they're the Governator). Its by listening to people and playing off what they want. People are scarred of being attacked, so you say "we have to stop them here" and claim anybody who disagrees wants to "cut and run"(even though they never used that phrase) or people dont like the price and quality of healthcare so you promise to reform it so everybody can have it.

Yep. Granted. Unfortunately, STAL, "unlikely" and "impossible"

I already acknowldged that. However moving it from 'impossible' to 'unlikely' still leaves the question of what something happened.

Humanity does not operate according to purely predictable social or cultural rules.

In general, yea they do actually. Unless something happens to change it.

Just when you think the culture suggests people will do X, they do Y. Happens all of the time. And amazingly enough - sometimes it happens without a lot of rationality behind it.

Could you clarify what you mean by that last part of your statement? If you mean these things happen without reason, then I have to disagree. If you mean their reasons aren't always rational, then your right, in some cases.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Ahhh yes....'preterism'...the amusing rationalization that the end of the world, as predicted by the apocalyptic cults of the first century, has already happened...

...you just weren't paying attention.

Actually I wasnt born yet. And I doubt anybody here(except Mossy) was.