Why are you an atheist/Agnostic

[Jaltus]

Hi, LGM, good to see you around.

[the_eliot_one]

Wow. Ouch. Years? 30 YEARS? How old were the followers when they wrote this stuff? What was the life expectancy then, what was the mental state of most 40 - 50 year olds at that time? Don't we have *ANYTHING* they wrote over those 30 years? From ANY of them? I mean, even copies will do - I understand this may just be a nuanced situation where the stuff in the bible happens the only stuff we have the originals of - if so, I'll give a little benefit of doubt to any copies of earlier writings of his followers. But 30 years? I mean, wow, this just opens a whole slew of new questions.

And they STILL can't agree on what happened:

John 20:
1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"
3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. 8Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

No disciples their, no angels, just Mary and noone around. The disciples definitley came later.

Luke 24:
1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " 8Then they remembered his words.
9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

Again disciples told about this later. But this time multiple women not just Mary and some angels talk to them, two to be precise

Mark 16
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Eh just the one angel know, so we've had 1, 2 and no angels at all now. And did they meet in or out the tomb.

Mark 16
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

Now that's odd, 1 angel again okey, but where did the earthquake and gaurds come from, what happened to the other women. And they met Jesus before talking to the disciples that's hardly a minor detail that could be missed.

[historic salve]

Thanks.

It is pretty inane, when you think about it. It’s a theory that can be used to claim veracity for the whacky beliefs of any superstitious cult, which don’t happen to jive with the mainstream religion or culture or social mores of some historical setting. Why else would the Heaven's Gate cult all commit suicide if there wasn't a real spaceship waiting behind the Hale-Bopp comet to take them to heaven?
Of course it must be true!

All straw men. Holding's argument isn't "Christianity was countercultural; therefore it's true."

It's not surprising to see all the weak apologist-wannabes that frequent this forum, lapping up Holding’s shoddy theory, like mother's milk. The guy has a fan club here he should be truly proud of.

And what are you sucking on, LGM? Or maybe you're inhaling it.

It seems that just like so many ancient religious stories, about resurrecting savior gods

Which ones?

most of the Christian apologetics practiced in this forum, is derivative and plagiarized

Funny, you sound like the parrot to me.

[Warcraft3]

Thanks.

It is pretty inane, when you think about it.

No, if I thought it was inane I wouldn't say it was a decent argument....

It’s a theory that can be used to claim veracity for the whacky beliefs of any superstitious cult, which don’t happen to jive with the mainstream religion or culture or social mores of some historical setting. Why else would the Heaven's Gate cult all commit suicide if there wasn't a real spaceship waiting behind the Hale-Bopp comet to take them to heaven?
Of course it must be true!

Bad example.....

It's not surprising to see all the weak apologist-wannabes that frequent this forum, lapping up Holding’s shoddy theory, like mother's milk. The guy has a fan club here he should be truly proud of.

I have read many of Holding's arguments and I think the guy usually does a very good job. I don't always agree with him, but I think his impossible faith argument has a lot of good points.

It seems that just like so many ancient religious stories, about resurrecting savior gods, most of the Christian apologetics practiced in this forum, is derivative and plagiarized, and it doesn’t hold up when examined by a critical thinking non-subscriber.

Because there are so very many "savior gods" that have stories that parallel Christ...right?

Funny we never hear about any of them today.....

[Meta Knight]

Speakin' of a river in Egypt...

Yeah, it does take a lot of guts to deny the mundanity of that idea.

[LGM]

Hi, LGM, good to see you around.

Jaltus!

My favorite poet librarian...won't you please grace me your bardly skills in my own private forum?

I miss your verse...

[LGM]

All straw men. Holding's argument isn't "Christianity was countercultural; therefore it's true."

Spare me...you've got lots of bluster of what it isn't, not much of what it is.


Holding's argument is that the success of early Christianity defies the sociological common sense of the honor and shame society from which it sprang, and therefore could only be accounted for by the fact that the miraculous resurrection of Jesus(as recorded in some anonymously written stories...decades later...)must have been TRUE.

Yet for some odd reason, the religion's founding head honcho, Saul of Tarsus, and his merry band of Corinthians, never claimed to have seen any Jesus zombie, in a physical body, in Jerusalem or Galilee, yet they bought into Paul's gospel...hook, line and sinker....

Ya see slave, unlike you, I've actually read Holding's essay, and the bible!

And what are you sucking on, LGM? Or maybe you're inhaling it.

Dude...it ain't me who believes in talking serpents, an angry god comitting infantcide on a bunch of poor Egyptians, and a zombie god-man flying up into heaven in his physical body...

Best you check what yer youth leader is bakin' in yer brownies...

Which ones?

Attis, Osiris, Adonis...and many others. Sorry yer only familiar with the plagarized motif found in the gospels. Dying and resurrected gods were a dime a dozen. It's simply a reflection of the cycle found in nature. It's been copied over and over again.

Funny, you sound like the parrot to me.

And it appears you're just another apologist-wannabe who can manage to imitate JP's insults, but not his ability to at least pound out 3 original paragraphs.

Run along now.

[LGM]

Bad example.....

Perfect example.

Why else would the Heaven's Gate believers commit mass suicide unless they KNEW that spaceship was really there?

Worshipping a crucified god in ancient Rome, seems kinda easy, compared to being a comfy California programmer, and betting your life on a spaceship that's going to take you to heaven.

[LGM]

Funny we never hear about any of them today.....

So I guess the religion you 'hear' the most about...must be the one that is true?


Dude...don't move Iran.

[historic salve]

Spare me...you've got lots of bluster of what it isn't, not much of what it is.

Sure, I'll spare you. Peter threw back small fry, so why shouldn't I?

Holding's argument is that the success of early Christianity defies the sociological common sense of the honor and shame society from which it sprang, and therefore could only be accounted for by the fact that the miraculous resurrection of Jesus

You can blow your nose all you like, but you're still wrong. JP's argument is that the first Christians had indisputable evidence of the resurrection that made other people accept it, despite all the obvious reasons (in an honor and shame culture) not to do so.

(as recorded in some anonymously written stories...

Only if you assume they were written anonymously. I guess someone like Mark was made up by Papias, who in turn was never actually real because he was also made up by that evil Church conspiracy.

It's actually quite striking, if the first Christians were really so apt to make up history, that three of the four Gospels were written by non-Apostles. They could have easily claimed that the Gospels were written by central figures like James or Peter. But don't expect Lake George to clean the sewage out of his ears any time soon... or to look up "metacognition" in the dictionary that he never uses.

decades later...)

As if this is a problem.

Yet for some odd reason, the religion's founding head honcho, Saul of Tarsus, and his merry band of Corinthians, never claimed to have seen any Jesus zombie, in a physical body, in Jerusalem or Galilee, yet they bought into Paul's gospel...hook, line and sinker....

You can trip over yourself all you like, but you're not going to expunge 1 Cor 15 from the Bible.

Ya see slave, unlike you, I've actually read Holding's essay, and the bible!

That's salve, Lake George Monster. You must be an even bigger idiot than I thought if you missed the words vinegar and medicinal right next to my screen name, as well as John 9 in my sig.

Dude...it ain't me who believes in talking serpents, an angry god comitting infantcide on a bunch of poor Egyptians, and a zombie god-man flying up into heaven in his physical body...

WAAAAAAAAAA!! "No ad hominems you JP-fraud, but reductio ad absurdums are just fine!!"

Attis, Osiris, Adonis...and many others. Sorry yer only familiar with the plagarized motif found in the gospels. Dying and resurrected gods were a dime a dozen. It's simply a reflection of the cycle found in nature. It's been copied over and over again.

Actually, I've already heard of them. It's cute that you think I'm only familiar with the "plagarized" (sic) material found in the Gospels.

I asked because I wanted specifics. Claiming that these gods all died and "resurrected" is not only misleading, it's false. You should also be aware that the position you're taking is a minority one rejected by most scholars; I'm sure others have corrected you on this a thousand times before, and you won't listen to me either, but we'll see what we can do for honest people reading the thread.

And it appears you're just another apologist-wannabe who can manage to imitate JP's insults, but not his ability to at least pound out 3 original paragraphs.

Anyone who uses satire is copying JP? More likely you're just obsessed with him.

Run along now.

Isn't that your job?

[LGM]

Sure, I'll spare you. Peter threw back small fry, so why shouldn't I?

Not sure what this babble means...I'm sure it's pithy tho...

You can blow your nose all you like, but you're still wrong. JP's argument is that the first Christians had indisputable evidence of the resurrection that made other people accept it, despite all the obvious reasons (in an honor and shame culture) not to do so.

What indisputable evidence? Don't beat around the bush slave...out with it. What did they have? A youtube video of Thomas sticking his hand in the side of zombie-jesus? Perhaps they had a picture of Jesus flying up in the clouds and waving bye-bye? Perhaps an affidavit signed by the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb? Perhaps an angel, or the zombie-Moses who came out of his tomb, as recorded in Matthew, was making the rounds with them on their recruiting drives?



Paul's indisputable evidence to his Corinth buddies was just his passionate blathering about his messianic vision and his Pharisee-wannabe exegesis of Jewish scripture. Paul's promise was that if you followed him, and subscribed to his theology, his savior god was going to physically ressurect you after you died...on this planet...

Sorry...he was mistaken...him and the rest of his flock are all dust and bones.

Paul's 'evidence' is the EXACT same evidence Reverend Moon uses…it’s call evangelical crapola…and it works every time.

Dang…at least Joseph Smith had those golden plates.

Only if you assume they were written anonymously.

Dude, when a book is written in a third person narrative, and the author doesn’t identify himself, his relationship to the characters in the narratve, or his sources for the narrative, we call that writing - anonymous. Sorry to burst yer bubble.

And that’s why there’s a huge cottage industry of over-educated NT scholars who keep writing speculative tomes about who wrote the gospels. No one knows.

I guess someone like Mark was made up by Papias, who in turn was never actually real because he was also made up by that evil Church conspiracy.

Dude…when did Papias live? The best testimony you got is Eusebius in the third century, quoting Papias (a source he claimed wasn’t reliable) in the second century, about the nebulous origins of an unsigned document written in the first century.

You have no idea who wrote Mark or what his sources were.

The origins of the gospels, as a strictly literary question, was not a big concern for folks like Papias, or many ancient and medieval Christians. Most of them couldn’t read them. They were just stories told to them by some Priest. Thus, any information about their literary origins tended to be incidental and, as a result, rather vague. Now, modern, literate, enlightenment age, fundy Christians, feel the need for a little bit more assurance that the gospels are really newspaper accounts, written by eyewitnesses who traveled with Jesus, and took copius notes, of every pithy thing he said, to some Samarian women at a well.

And of course we have brilliant apologists like you, who are more than happy to confirm that those are the facts!

You're doing a wonderful job!

[historic salve]

Not sure what this babble means...I'm sure it's pithy tho...

I'm not surprised that a simple joke about fishermen went over your head; nor am I surprised that you failed to produce anything of substance about Adonis, Attis, etc.

What indisputable evidence?

The women at the tomb, for one, which NT Wright calls "a primary datum." The number of witnesses who all reported seeing the same thing - Jesus - is another.

But Wright is just a fundy who twists the texts to suit his preconceived view, right?

Paul's indisputable evidence to his Corinth buddies was just his passionate blathering about his messianic vision and his Pharisee-wannabe exegesis of Jewish scripture.

You're shooting off at the mouth. I don't see any "passion" in Paul's conversion; in fact, it's quite less "embellished" than Luke's account of the same.

Paul's promise was that if you followed him, and subscribed to his theology, his savior god was going to physically ressurect you after you died...on this planet...

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why would Paul use the general resurrection as a carrot to get people to believe when only Jews accepted it? Believing in the general resurrection came after believing everything else. It has nothing to do with Christ's resurrection, either.

Dang…at least Joseph Smith had those golden plates.

And somehow they ended up in your brain.

Dude, when a book is written in a third person narrative, and the author doesn’t identify himself, his relationship to the characters in the narratve, or his sources for the narrative, we call that writing - anonymous.

Sorry to burst yer bubble.

I guess it's just a coincidence that "THE GOSPEL OF MARK" is on every copy of Mark that we have. (For the chronically dumb Lake George: I'm not saying this proves Mark wrote his Gospel. I'm disputing your false claim that the sources are anonymous).

Dude…when did Papias live?

Reinventing Jesus 142 says somewhere in the 60s to c. 130. Another source places him from 70-155.

The best testimony you got is Eusebius in the third century, quoting Papias (a source he claimed wasn’t reliable) in the second century, about the nebulous origins of an unsigned document written in the first century.

What a bozo! I'm not talking about any quotes by Eusebius. You see, Lake George, we have this wonderful little book called the Fragments of Papias; I wasn't relying on a secondhand source. What does it say about your credibility that you didn't even know the Fragments existed?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vii.ii.html

You have no idea who wrote Mark or what his sources were.

I never said that I "know" who wrote it. Even if it's completely anonymous, it's still likely that the author drew from a common oral tradition, and it's still consonant with the other Gospels on the person of Jesus.

The origins of the gospels, as a strictly literary question, was not a big concern for folks like Papias, or many ancient and medieval Christians.

The ancients were very concerned about authorship and dating. That was why forgeries like the Gospel of Thomas, and even "inspired" Christian works like the Shepherd of Hermas were excluded from the canon.

Most of them couldn’t read them. They were just stories told to them by some Priest.

How dumb are you? That only applies to the medieval era! Before Christianity was the official religion of the empire, Christians were subject to persecution. If their very lives were in danger for the kind of books they kept (as was often the case), they would take an obvious interest in who wrote what and how it got to them. Who would die for an obvious forgery?

[nickcopernicus]

Historic Salve:
How dumb are you? That only applies to the medieval era! Before Christianity was the official religion of the empire, Christians were subject to persecution. If their very lives were in danger for the kind of books they kept (as was often the case), they would take an obvious interest in who wrote what and how it got to them.

Nick:
Emphasis mine.
I've heard a lot about this, but I've seen little to no evidence of widespread Christian persecution outside of them being blamed for some fire or another. Do you happen to have anthing else?

Historic Salve:
Who would die for an obvious forgery?

Nick:
This is a useless defense. "Who would die for a lie?"

Lot's of people. Just ask the Heaven's gate candidates. Or David Koresh's followers.
People die for falshoods often enough.
Why would a woman in Texas slaughter her child unless god really told her to do so?

Ridiculous,

Nick

[historic salve]

Emphasis mine.
I've heard a lot about this, but I've seen little to no evidence of widespread Christian persecution outside of them being blamed for some fire or another. Do you happen to have anthing else?

Until 250, there were no persecutions of Christians on an imperial scale.¹ However, history shows that there were examples of persecution on a sub-imperial scale. The Great Fire of Rome is well-known. Pliny admitted that the Christians lived good lives, so around 112 in a letter to Trajan he came up with another reason to kill them: "For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought before me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished" (Reinventing Jesus 198).

As for imperial persecution, Diocletian's was very bad. His fourth edict against the Church explicitly ordered the torture of Christians, extending a previous order to the laity (!). The Catholic Encyclopedia cites Eusebius and the Acts of the Martyrs as saying that "vast numbers" suffered for the faith under Diocletian. ²

This is a useless defense. "Who would die for a lie?"

Lot's of people. Just ask the Heaven's gate candidates. Or David Koresh's followers.
People die for falshoods often enough.
Why would a woman in Texas slaughter her child unless god really told her to do so?

I made it clear in my post that we were talking about people who knew it was a lie.

Additionally, we're not talking about unverifiable claims of God speaking to people. We're talking about a matter of history and the plausible intention of Christians to sift the grain from the chaff.

[Carpedm9587]

I made it clear in my post that we were talking about people who knew it was a lie.

This is part of the whole JPH "it must be true" argument that blows my mind. It's as if people think that decades are nothing. There would have been, at most, a small handful of people about which one could even POSSIBLY have this "they knew it was a lie" argument about. The VAST majority of the Christian community would not have been witnesses and would have based their faith on essentially the same thing modern Christians base it on: word of mouth, writings/letters, and community teaching/pressure.

And when one factors in that people with enough of a passion for a thing CAN and DO convince themselves of some pretty amazing things, plus the possibility of deception, the "they had to know it was a lie" argument simply falls flat. They didn't HAVE to know it was a lie - even if it was. It could have been anything from an outright lie to a full blown deception to anything in between, including well-meaning people. The argument rests on the premise that we can know the motivations of people - and the circumstances of that motivation - based on the actions chosen. We can't. It's an absurd claim.

Michel