Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Teallaura]

...
Perhaps your evidentiary bar is set overly high.

...

Actually, the problem is that his thumb is on the scale - sometimes he realizes it, sometimes not.

[Teallaura]

Sure, it's no secret that people, who for whatever reason, have come to believe in a particular god, will martyr themselves for the cause. I mean, we see that happening even today. But there is no sound evidence that the characters in the bible known as the apostles were any more real, or that they died for their belief, than any of the other crazy stuff written there was real.

Jim, you just dismissed most of world history - and I mean the stuff NOT in the Bible. Gallic Wars - gone. Sparta - gone. Hannibal - gone. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Scripture is the single most scrutinized document from ancient times - barring none. It has the most extant or recent copies of any ancient document of even remotely similar age. No other ancient documentation can come close. Further, it has been proven repeatedly to be correct in geographic, historical and a wealth of other details not directly pertaining to the accounts of miracles - so it's foolishness to dismiss it as a source of historical knowledge (Remember, even the Illiad provides historical information even if you don't think Achilles was really invulnerable except for his ankle).

You can (although I'd obviously disagree) make a valid argument about the reality of miracles (valid in the technical sense) - but it is wholly irrational to deny the historical existence of the Apostles or of Christ - the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. No genuine historian - including the atheists - disputes their existence (deeds are another matter).

This is part of what makes the 2014 crash so awful - Bande put this idea to rest categorically - and he wasn't a believer. I don't remember if you were around back then - you'd have liked Bandecoot. At the very least, he had a post I wish I could link now.

[Doug Shaver]

Jim, you just dismissed most of world history

How did he do that? What exactly does most of world history have to do with whether we should believe anything Christians believe about the history of their religion?

[Teallaura]

Exactly, and when you consider that the bible was written decades after the supposed biblical events took place, then the future histories of the apostles should have been recorded therein as well. I would think.

Um, Jim, you cannot record 'future histories'. That makes no sense. I'm guessing you mean events subsequent to the Ascension - that kind of record does happen, in Acts.

The epistles were usually concerned with informing - and governing - the flock. The gospels are about the life of Christ. While a lot of theology is expounded in the books of the New Testament, they weren't recording history per se. There are some mentions of other apostles (Paul does this) and what the author is up to (again, a lot of Paul) but they are passing references. Only Acts records events in the same way as the Gospels - and it is an extension of The Gospel of Luke (personally, I lean toward the theory that Luke and Acts are the body of a legal brief). In short there's actually more information about the subsequent activities of the Apostles than should be expected - the authors aren't writing diaries, or personal correspondence - they are writing documents and letters directed for a purpose (hence the thematic differences in the Epistles) which was not the recording of events other than the Life of Christ (Gospels) but the presentation of information regarding Christ and His church.

[Teallaura]

How did he do that? What exactly does most of world history have to do with whether we should believe anything Christians believe about the history of their religion?

Documentary evidence - most of world history is known from rather limited sources - many of which aren't extant or don't have recent (to the original) copies. If we toss Scripture as unreliable as Jim would have us do, then we must also toss absolutely all of the rest of recorded world history until sometime after the 15th Century at least (and a good portion wouldn't be considered reliable until at least the 18th Century).

[Terraceth]

Although when it comes to Jesus, any evidence of any of his immediate followers dying for their beliefs is actually pretty 3rd-hand. Nowhere in the Bible do any of the disciples die for their beliefs. Although in later centuries there's plenty of martyrdom accounts of Christians who had never met Jesus. As well as relatively unverifiable and seemingly ridiculous claims about the alleged martyrdom of the disciples (e.g. Peter being crucified upside down).

Well, if we're talking about the original 12 disciples (there are martyrdoms mentioned in Acts, but they are not the original 12 disciples) it is true that for most of them, descriptions of their martyrdoms come relatively late. This of course doesn't mean they're false, but it does mean they're less reliable.

Peter, however, is a completely different story. First, we get a description of his future death right in the Bible, namely John 21:18-19, which even includes an implication that it will be via crucifixion. 1 Clement 5, one of the earliest noncanonical writings we have, also mentions Peter was martyred, although without mentioning the method. The methodology of his death explicitly being crucifixion didn't come until Tertullian and Origen, but the main point, that he was a martyr, was established early.

What exactly is ridiculous about Peter being crucified upside down, though? I don't think it was particularly common but that practice was done to people.

[JimL]

Um, Jim, you cannot record 'future histories'. That makes no sense. I'm guessing you mean events subsequent to the Ascension - that kind of record does happen, in Acts.

Since the NT wasn't written until decades after the events that were recorded in the bible, then recording the later lives of the disciples wouldn't have been recording future histories. In other words, what were the disciples, the supposed witnesses of all the NT claims, what were they doing during the 40 years between the time of the resurrection and the writing of the NT?

[carpedm9587]

Argh! All this 'proves' is that you don't know the difference between evidence - or the definition - and proof which is the exact same problem that those making the claim for proof have.

An ironic comment, given the discussions in other threads about people's misuse of "evidence" and "proof"

Of course it isn't proof - it's evidence.

Which is exactly what I said..

Now, given the actual facts, it's very strong evidence and it would be perfectly rational to accept it as substantial enough to consider the claim (Resurrection) proven. People do that all the time - virtually no one can or will examine absolutely all the evidence for a given matter. Courts don't, either - this is where evidentiary procedure comes in (handling and determination of evidence). but no, technically, evidence is not proof.

I agree with most of this, but I would be careful about "facts." That is the core of the problem. Many of the things called "facts" by those making the arguments that the Resurrection is "proven" I see as claims - not facts. It is why I do not see the resurrection as "proven." I believe most of these claims have not themselves shown to be solid.

However, it's asinine to question whether or not evidence directly pertaining to witness reliability is in fact evidence - of course it is.

Can you point to the place where you think I said otherwise?

It's not direct evidence of the Resurrection - it IS direct evidence of the reliability of the eye witness testimony of those claiming to have witnessed the Resurrected Christ. How you could possibly have a 'credible' explanation of their subsequent martyrdom other than they genuinely believed what they were saying, I can't imagine - all the possibilities I've ever heard expounded were between highly improbably and outright silly.

I would say it is a testament to the beliefs of the authors of the various works.

The OP and this post indicate that you really do not understand the argument and that you don't understand evidence any better than those you were criticizing.If you cannot differentiate between supporting evidence (which is what this is) and direct evidence then one wonders how well you've evaluated all the other evidence you so readily dismiss.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion.

It's fine to use your own standards of evidence for your own purposes - it is NOT fine to use substandard standards in the process of debating - and especially not of attempting to convince.

It's not clear to me where you think this occurred.

[carpedm9587]

Zym already covered this so I won't but

Easy, Teal. You're gonna hurt yourself...

[One Bad Pig]

I think there human psychology is badly ignored in these discussions. And you have to remember that the accounts you are reading were written at the END of that cycle, not at the beginning. So the history you are counting on is after the evolution of a developing theology. Paul's letters are within 2 decades, but the gospels and acts were form significantly later, OBP.

And it's Paul's letters which insist that a different gospel must be rejected. I don't know what END you're referring to; theology continued to develop for centuries. The key to its development was that it needed to take as its starting point agreement with what had been believed before. The early extracanonical writings which tended to be treasured (the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians for example) explicitly stated their dependence on what they had learned from the apostles. In church councils, the arguments turned on what had been accepted in the past. In order for your radical theory that there were significant and systematic changes to be at all plausible, you'd need a society with poor memory and/or willingness to alter their beliefs when something they liked better came along - and neither remotely describes society back then.

All of these things can be reproduced by con artists or "sensitives" OBP. The gift of being able to get someone to "give up information" with their being aware they have is not uncommon.

In none of the three instances related to me would that be likely, Carpe. In two of them, there was no prior interaction between the parties. I'm confident your skepticism is invincible, however.

Yes, I believe the wide variation in religions, and they continual tendency to fragment, is an indication that there is no underlying unifying reality. Either that, or god is the most inept being I've ever encountered at making him/her/itself known. For an omnipotent, omniscient, supernatural being, that is an odd "skill."

From whence did you get this notion that I think there is an underlying unifying reality behind all religions? God is hardly inept; he's just willing to let those who don't want to see remain blind.

It is set to the same height I set the requirements for any other beliefs I hold: reasonable evidence.

You are really, really good at twisting words to mean what you want them to mean so you can hold to notions you like. I'm confident you could do the same with any evidence that might otherwise make you change your mind.

I wasn't actually talking about the bible, though I do think all religions contain common themes for a reason. I was thinking more of how it is the human species derived religions to begin with. What purpose they served and how they came to be so widespread.

I find that to be rather implausible as well. How did every single civilization manage to come up with the concept? Given God and the fall of Satan, the rest makes eminent sense.

[carpedm9587]

And it's Paul's letters which insist that a different gospel must be rejected. I don't know what END you're referring to; theology continued to develop for centuries.

You're right - I was unclear. The "end" I was referring to is the end of the first generation Christians and the loss of the original witnesses.

The key to its development was that it needed to take as its starting point agreement with what had been believed before. The early extracanonical writings which tended to be treasured (the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians for example) explicitly stated their dependence on what they had learned from the apostles. In church councils, the arguments turned on what had been accepted in the past. In order for your radical theory that there were significant and systematic changes to be at all plausible, you'd need a society with poor memory and/or willingness to alter their beliefs when something they liked better came along - and neither remotely describes society back then.

First of all, I'm not sure what "radical theory" you are suggesting I hold. The only theory I think I have put forward is that the claims that the supernatural aspects of Jesus' life are historically accurate require an assumption that, from the day of Jesus' death until the time when the "history" was documented, there was little/no theological impact on the historical record. I don't think that case can be made. We are talking periods measured in decades. We also know, today, the impact of group-think and/or a powerful orator on memory, individually and collectively. Christianity had both, and I see no reason to think that the human psyche was any different in that age than it is in this.

In none of the three instances related to me would that be likely, Carpe. In two of them, there was no prior interaction between the parties. I'm confident your skepticism is invincible, however.

My skepticism remains in place because I am getting a story from someone I don't know (you), have little/no way of assessing their psychological state and/or predispositions, on a website that has a strong "supernatural" component, about a "supernatural" encounter that lends itself to other explanations. A truly gifted "mind reader" does not need to have any "prior encounter." I've been to the magic shows. I've read the literature. I know some of the techniques used to get information out of a person leaving them the impression that their mind has "been read." The more open the person is to the possibility of the supernatural, the easier it is to do. Think of it this way. Assuming you do not believe unicorns are real, if I conveyed to you a story about how I was in the woods and encountered an actual unicorn, which proceeded to touch me with it's horn and heal the bruised ribs I had from falling down only a few minutes before, would it change your beliefs about unicorns? Is there ANYTHING I could say to you here that would cause you to walk away saying, "yeah - I have to change that unicorn belief. This guy is compelling!"

From whence did you get this notion that I think there is an underlying unifying reality behind all religions? God is hardly inept; he's just willing to let those who don't want to see remain blind.

This happens a lot here. If you read my statement, I conveyed what I believe. At no point did I suggest you believe it. As for god's abilities, I guess I'll leave that to you. When/if I have adequate cause to believe there is a god, I will so believe. Until then, I will not lie about it.

You are really, really good at twisting words to mean what you want them to mean so you can hold to notions you like. I'm confident you could do the same with any evidence that might otherwise make you change your mind.

Yeah - this gets said a lot here to. I find myself scratching my head a bit. When we have a disagreement about language, I go find dictionary definitions, ask myself if my use is in line with it, and post the results of that investigation. I can be 100% aligned with the dictionary definition, and someone will tell me that I'm "twisting words to mean what I want." It's an amazing phenomena. I have no clue why it happens.

I find that to be rather implausible as well. How did every single civilization manage to come up with the concept? Given God and the fall of Satan, the rest makes eminent sense.

I think you are very narrowly focused on Christianity, as if religions began with Jesus. I am fairly sure you don't actually think that, but you seem to keep going there. I was talking about how religions arose in the human species itself. We get clues about that from ancient cave art, archeological digs, etc.

[Sparko]

So has it been straightened out now? The correct argument is "Nobody will die for something they know is a lie"

The Apostles would be in the unique position to actually know if Jesus was for real or not. So...
If the apostles knew Jesus was lying and they were going around spreading a false religion then
1. They were morons because all they did was get themselves and their followers chased and executed by everybody around them: the Jews and the Romans.
2. All they had to do was admit they made it all up, or disappear back into the crowd and go about living their lives as ordinary Jews instead of being ostracized and hunted.

[JimL]

So has it been straightened out now? The correct argument is "Nobody will die for something they know is a lie"

The Apostles would be in the unique position to actually know if Jesus was for real or not. So...
If the apostles knew Jesus was lying and they were going around spreading a false religion then
1. They were morons because all they did was get themselves and their followers chased and executed by everybody around them: the Jews and the Romans.
2. All they had to do was admit they made it all up, or disappear back into the crowd and go about living their lives as ordinary Jews instead of being ostracized and hunted.

And nobody did die for something they knew was a lie. Apparently after the supposed resurrection and until (some 40 years) the NT was written, the disciples just disappeared from history.

[Mountain Man]

If it's a storybook, then the reason "why the apostles sincerely believed it," is because that was the intent of the authors.

It's these kinds of simplistic arguments that make you not worth the trouble.

The short answer is that the gospels were written as historical biographies, and they were accepted as such from the very beginning, including by contemporary witnesses.

[element771]

Probably. People with those views tend to be hounded off the site by right-wingers who tell them they're not real Christians. Sam was the last regular poster here like that and he left in disgust. I still follow him on facebook though.

Sam certainly received more than his fair share of criticism from the posters here. I guess you'll have to see and find out.

Well I am used to that...

Being a scientist who is a Christian AND a Christian who is politically liberal makes for a number of adversarial conversations.

I don't typically engage in political discourse on forums. I have a better shot at converting you to Christianity...