Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Roy]

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.

Your evidence that any contemporary witnesses ever read or heard the gospels is...?

[carpedm9587]

Looks like we're talking about different ideas here.

Possible. Certainly would not be the first time.

I think you're vastly over-inflating the number of charlatans out there, and refusing to consider the possibility that those who are out there might be aping something real.

And I think your worldview is influencing that perception. I think it is reasonable to require adequate evidence before adopting a position. We are likely to disagree on what "adequate" is. In general, however, "adequate" means (to me) enough evidence to overcome the existing body of evidence AGAINST the proposition. You have already accepted the proposition as true (presumably based on evidence), so your bar for the next claim will necessarily be lower than mine. I have rejected the proposition as false (also based on evidence) so it will require more evidence to overcome what I already know - or it will require someone showing that what I already know is somehow false.

I see that I somehow got your position backwards. I apologize.

I don't know what's wrong with you OBP. Certainly I have never misunderstood someone else's position...

(and if the wink did not give it away - I'm being facetious. We're human. Sometimes we just misunderstand. No problem.)

I'd say that religions tend to fragment over time because humans. Countries tend to fragment over time too, absent force (often of arms) holding them together.

Again - similar dynamic. Other than the "common philosophy" of a country, there is nothing else to hold it together, so they fragment. Religions do the same thing. Science, however, shows the opposite trend. Because science is about an objective reality (i.e., the universe), when a new proposition is put forward, there is lots of dissent and arguing. But as experimentation by multiple separate parties comes to the same result, the community tends to coalesce around the news principle. Then the process starts all over with the next proposal.

Got some examples?

See the science example, above.

The flood, yes - though it seems an odd story to be so widespread; a creation story, yes; the sacrificial lamb, not so much; with the last category, you're verging on Christ-myth.

The "flood" story is a specific example of the "god-of-wrath destroying" meme. Look around the world and ask yourself which natural disaster is most likely to be most experienced by most people? Waterways were (and are) the highways of commerce. Towns, villages and cities sprang up around them. When you look at how human populations have been deployed over history, the vast majority of the population has been (and is) deployed around waterways. That makes "floods" the most common disaster to humanity. So if you are going to have an unhappy god wreaking vengeance on its creation (a common theme), the flood is the most likely literary instrument.

Then why even bother asserting your innocence? I don't want to see you as someone who plays fast and loose with definitions, but I keep seeing you do it.

Color me human. But I have, recently, begun to realize I am wasting a lot of time "defending" myself. So I have not yet reached that place where I can just let people have their opinions of me and move on. It is a place I'd like to get to. Like my "carpescape," I'm about 50% successful. Likewise, I am about 50% successful letting people think what they will and moving on. The rest of the time, I fall into the trap of wanting to set the record straight.

But that's OK. According to my wife, I'm still about 30 years away from finishing puberty, and I'm about to turn 60.

It doesn't prove anything; it shows that one is not like the others, so it is perhaps not legitimate to lump it in with all the rest.

OBP, every religion I have ever encountered defines itself as "true" and all others as wrong in some respect. Christianity is no different. I think what is happening here is that you are looking out from within the belief system and seeing "mine" and "other." I am sitting outside all religions, not adhering to any of them, and not finding anything different about them except the details of their theology.

Christianity is not a "western" religion; western civilization is built on it, not the other way around. I also contest the assertion that monotheism emerged from anything; it is built, AFAICS, on speculation, mostly done by those who have rejected it.

OK, let me see if I can say this more plainly. The monotheism that seems to have emerged in the ancient near east (the Sinai peninsula and surrounds) is the religion that then evolves and roots itself in the west. It eventually displaces the polytheisms that occupied that same region (Egypt, Greece, Rome). The far east has a very different evolutionary path.

I also did not say that "monotheism" emerged "from" something (i.e., as in it is an evolutionary development). As far as I know, monotheism is first introduced by the emerging Judaic community and is a radical departure from other religious forms of the time. I know of no other "single-god" religions that predate it. It does adopt many themes from other religions, but it also has a unique form compared to other religions in the 2nd and 1st millenia BCE. As it expands, the model continuously displaces polytheisms in pretty much all contexts.

[Roy]

So you can't provide a reasonable, serious, non-stupid, can't-be-refuted-in-under-20-seconds argument for Christian theism either.

The Resurrection.

Didn't even take five seconds. Only an idiot would claim they can refute the Resurrection in 20 seconds or less.

"The Resurrection" is not an argument.

[Roy]

People will most definitely die for a lie if they don't know it is a lie and believe it to be true. But if they do know it is a lie (especially if they made the lie themselves) then they won't die for it if they can help it. The apostles had an easy out. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, they could have just went back to their old lives and nothing would have happened to them.

Or they could have become greedy and corrupt, and continued with the lie, growing it over time until their sect became dangerous and/or unstable, and either external pressure or internal politics led to violence and arrest, murder and betrayal, imprisonment and execution.

Joseph Smith could have gone back to his old life, but he was killed in a jail cell.

[Mountain Man]

It is possible. It depends on whether or not there was any possible naturalistic explanation for the event.



It's "neither reasonable nor rational" if you've already decided the "supernatural" is as likely (or close to as likely) as the "natural." Experience tells me that a) naturalistic explanations regularly displace supernatural ones, and never the reverse, b) supernatural claims are regularly (always) shown to be frauds, hoaxes, or misunderstandings, c) most claims to "supernatural" are little more than claims for the unlikely (misunderstandings of probability) and, d) I have zero personal experience of the supernatural. Based on those observations, it is reasonable/rational to demand clear and unambiguous evidence for a supernatural occurrence before accepting it as such.



So Merriam Webster offers two primary definitions: 1) of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil; 2) departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.

That is the definition I use. How else do you propose to define the term?

Your definition says that it only appears to transcend the laws of nature, which means it doesn't in actuality. Also, "unusual" does not mean implausible. So the dictionary definition doesn't help your argument.

In short, there is literally nothing that could convince you that a miracle had occurred because your mind is already made up, and you will always prefer a mundane explanation.

[Mountain Man]

Your evidence that any contemporary witnesses ever read or heard the gospels is...?

Are you asking because you're genuinely ignorant of Christian history and would like to learn something, or are you presenting this only as an uninformed rhetorical question and don't care about the answer? Because if it's the latter, I'm not wasting my time.

[carpedm9587]

Your definition says that it only appears to transcend the laws of nature, which means it doesn't in actuality.

MM, I REALLY think you would benefit from a logic course. The definition does not include "only," you added that. It simply says "appears to." Which means it might actually transcend the laws of nature, or it might appear to but actually not. That might be because it is adhering to a law of nature we have not yet discovered, or because there is an "illusion" at work. For example, the illusionist who makes an object "float" in the air "appears to be" transcending the "theory of gravity." In reality, there is an illusion at work and the laws of nature have not been transcended.

And BTW, it's not "my definition." It was cut/paste from Merriam Webster. I neglected to include this link.

Also, "unusual" does not mean implausible. So the dictionary definition doesn't help your argument.

On this one, you are correct. "Unusual" and "implausible" are not the same concept (though they are often confused). Something that is unusual is not necessarily supernatural. After all, it is unusual for my father-in-law to win the lottery. If he does, it would hardly be considered supernatural, which is why the definition goes on to note "especially those that appear to transcend the laws of nature."

In general, MM, something that is "supernatural," in my book, is something that defies the normal operation of the universe. So turning water into wine is "supernatural" unless you take the usual approach of passing it through a grapevine, squeezing the grapes, and fermenting the results. Likewise, "raising someone from the dead" is supernatural, unless we are talking about resuscitating someone who is well within the bounds of resuscitation.

In short, there is literally nothing that could convince you that a miracle had occurred because your mind is already made up, and you will always prefer a mundane explanation.

So the first half of your statement is wrong, but the second half is correct. I will always lean towards a naturalistic explanation, unless someone can show that there is no such possible explanation. I take that position on the basis of the criteria I have already listed. But if someone can show the latter, then I will accept a supernatural explanation and re-evaluate my position as a consequence.

[Starlight]

This is funny in light of the numerous times you've called the Christians on this board "not real Christians."

It's too early in the morning and I'm pre-coffee... can you explain the joke to me? Why is it funny that that people I don't regard as being real Christians would say weird/wrong things such as accusing real Christians of not being real Christians?

[mossrose]

It's too early in the morning and I'm pre-coffee... can you explain the joke to me? Why is it funny that that people I don't regard as being real Christians would say weird/wrong things such as accusing real Christians of not being real Christians?

You were never a real Christian.

If you had been you would be still.

[Starlight]

Then what happened to the disciples for the next 40 years after the death and supposed resurrection, when the NT was actually written?

It seems that Jesus's followers established a commune in Jerusalem (as per Acts), and then (according to Paul and other early sources) their leader actually became James, Jesus's brother, who is suspiciously unmentioned in the gospels. According to Josephus's account of the capture of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans in 70AD, there were pretty much dozens of such Jewish groups and factions in Jerusalem, and the vast majority of them got destroyed. The Christian historian Eusebius recounts a claim that at least some of the Jesus-following group escaped and regrouped in Pella before eventually returning to Jerusalem, only to then be caught in a later Jewish-Roman conflict (the Bar Kokhba revolt 132AD). After that there was largely nothing left of the Jewish followers of Jesus, and the various Churches among the gentiles founded by Paul etc were the predominant form of orthodox Christianity.

In short there's basically zero evidence that any alleged resurrection appearances to them inspired them to achieve or do anything.

[Starlight]

You were never a real Christian.

If you had been you would be still.

Do I take it you're a Calvinist who holds to "Perseverance of the Saints" in the face of the observable evidence that some people do fall away?

[mossrose]

Do I take it you're a Calvinist who holds to "Perseverance of the Saints" in the face of the observable evidence that some people do fall away?

I believe that scripture is clear that God holds fast those who belong to Him. Here, among other places:

35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 Just as it is written,

“For Your sake we are being put to death all day long;
We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”

37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us.
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord

.

Romans 8.

And 1 John 2:19:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

[carpedm9587]

Do I take it you're a Calvinist who holds to "Perseverance of the Saints" in the face of the observable evidence that some people do fall away?

I suspect that you are going to get several scriptural quotes on this. The "once Christian always Christian has a long and glorious tradition. So you can be in an evangelical community for decades, but if you leave you either never where, or you still are.

The whole thing has the flavor of accusing someone of being an alcoholic. Since one of the symptoms of alcoholism is denial, once accused, you're an alcoholic. If you don't deny, your admitting you are. If you do deny, that's a symptom of alcoholism. Sort of a catch-22.

[mossrose]

Go ahead and defend each other. One can not know God through Jesus Christ and then deny Him. There is head knowledge, and heart knowledge, and SL had one and not the other.

Of course you will mock and denigrate scripture for your own ends.

[JimL]

I believe that scripture is clear that God holds fast those who belong to Him. Here, among other places:

.

Romans 8.

And 1 John 2:19:

That you believe it, doesn't make it true.