Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Teallaura]

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

Three hundred years of early church/world history - this is the kind of argument people who don't bother to do their homework make. Unless you are seriously going to contest First to Third Century extra-church history, this is just absurd.

[Teallaura]

"The Resurrection" is not an argument.

Yes, it is. If you want soundbites, you get them - that you didn't know enough about the Resurrection to follow the argument...

So, let's see you do this '20 second' refutation of the mountain of evidence surrounding the Resurrection.

[Teallaura]

No doubt about it, just because we believe something doesn't make it true. So your assertion that once a christian always a christian is not necessarily so, and all of the many ex-christians believe differently.

Her assertion is based in Scripture which is the source for the tenets of Christian belief - you can argue that she's misinterpreting the relevant passages (okay, that's you general - you personal should not try that) but you cannot rationally argue that her belief is baseless here.

[Starlight]

Three hundred years of early church/world history - this is the kind of argument people who don't bother to do their homework make. Unless you are seriously going to contest First to Third Century extra-church history, this is just absurd.

Teal you've got the wrong end of the stick and are trying to defend the indefensible here. MM's bizarre statement was:

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.

Clearly Teal you at least think you know something about early church history, so you will be well aware that a claim that there is evidence that "contemporary witnesses" accepted the gospels "as historical biographies", is just ludicrous. Roy is absolutely right to question that claim, because it's ridiculous.

What I mean is that, in my opinion, the biblical story is a fiction, and because it is fiction you never hear about the desciples again after the narrative ends with the ascension. Why? Because they were not real, they were fictional characters.

I think it is interesting in that light that the book of Acts depicts a new disciple being selected to 'take the place of Judas' as one of the 12. This implies "the Twelve" were positions of religious leadership in the Jesus-movement - a title rather than a person, who could be replaced after they left the movement or died. Having 12 of them represented symbolically the leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel that would be restored. It's a little unclear whether the Peter/Cephas ("The rock") was the leader, or whether Jesus's brother James ended up as the leader. But the Roman Catholic Pope's claim to hold the position of the Peter makes sense if it's a tittle to be passed on rather than a particular person. Paul's claim in Corinthians about the appearances of the 'resurrected Jesus' is also a little awkward ("He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve") when you bear in mind that the gospels claim that Judas was long-gone and that the appearances were supposedly to 11 disciples, not 12.

There are lots of references by sources to the idea of The Twelve and the Peter as some sort of leadership within the early church. But as Acts makes clear, people could be swapped into such positions in the group of existing members left. I have no problem with the idea that Jesus themselves might have thought it was a great idea to have 12 special followers that represented the 12 tribes of New Israel, but like you I'm rather skeptical of the probable level of fiction in the gospels regarding the specific persons underlying those titles.

[JimL]

I already answered this - Scripture isn't a history text. It was written with purpose - which is why we see varying themes in the Epistles. The Apostles were concerned with telling others about Christ and how to live as His follower - they were not writing for the purpose of recording their own lives.

Read one of Hawkings' books - then from that only, try to glean what he was doing in his personal life at the time of the writing. he may actually have left some passing references that would help but since his purpose in writing was not to record his personal life, you won't find a great deal of information. Nor should you expect to - it's the same thing.

Right, I tend to agree, the Gospels aren't history texts.

[Starlight]

Right, I tend to agree, the Gospels aren't history texts.

I don't really have a problem with most of the gospels as historical texts. They depict Jesus as a social reformer much like MLK Jr, and as a wandering religious teacher much in the general tradition of Israel's prophets in the OT. From Jospehus' accounts of the period, the social climate was extremely tumultuous and there were dozens of such revolutionary and reform groups which ran the gamut between non-violent protests and outright armed rebellion against the Romans. The Jesus of the gospels seems to fit pretty well into the general milieu, with his group leaning toward non-violence, and his own focus being on wealth and poverty, and being in opposition to the Pharisee's agenda of social reform through encouragement of ritual purity. Miracle accounts in such an environment were a dime a dozen, and it was assumed that God existed and worked miracles through his prophets.

So I am fine with saying that perhaps as much as 90% of the gospels might be accurate and that on the whole Jesus was indeed a social reformer and taught the sorts of things the gospels generally say he did. Although I think social-context research is particularly helpful with understanding what is meant by them, as opposed to the spiritualized/allegorical reading that the gospel writers/later Christians put on them.

[rogue06]

Jim, seriously, have you even bothered to read the Bible at all? The Gospels are the only things that don't go further than the Ascension (not all of them cover that) - the Book of Acts goes very much into early church history. The Epistles do make reference to the doings of the Apostles - this is utterly untrue.

Myths don't arise in the short time frame from the event to the first known written recording of Scripture - thirty to fifty years isn't enough time for that. The Epistles are written to various churches - the idea that Christianity sprang whole cloth from a later writing is irrational - and it's also extremely poor procedure to dismiss oral narratives in a pre-literate society. Most Epistles are public letters - they are written to be read to a group, not as correspondence to an individual. That makes no sense if the Gospel narratives are unknown to the hearers.

There were still numerous witnesses around when they were written, meaning if the Gospels and Epistles were simply made up of whole cloth would have been quickly shot down and ignored. This simple concept is far beyond the grasp of Christ Mythers.

[Starlight]

There were still numerous witnesses around when they were written, meaning if the Gospels and Epistles were simply made up of whole cloth would have been quickly shot down and ignored. This simple concept is far beyond the grasp of Christ Mythers.

There's plenty of Fake News even in the present day. Just because someone somewhere knows the truth, doesn't mean other people elsewhere aren't perfectly capable of writing things that are not true.

[Roy]

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.

I'm asking because the gospels are considered to have been written several decades after the events they depict, and the earliest includes indications that it was not written in the community where the events occurred. It is not obvious that the gospels would have been available in Galilee and Jerusalem while those who witnessed Jesus's activities and crucifixion were still alive.

There may be some evidence that the gospels were circulated in Jerusalem before, say, 70AD, but if there is I'm not aware of it.

I am, however, aware of you having previously made false claims about the gospels. This may well be another one. So - your evidence that any contemporary witnesses ever read or heard the gospels is...?

[carpedm9587]

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.

I apologize, Moss, if my use of alcoholism was received as mocking or denigrating. It was the first analogy that came to mind, because it has happened to me now and again. I enjoy a couple of beers each evening, and a couple of family members have gotten it into their head's that I'm an alcoholic. Denying it has proved fruitless, and I've had to simply adjust to "they will think what they will think."

The basic point of my post was that the approach was on designed to always be able to claim a certain "purity" for the Christian community. It's not uncommon. So people either go the route of "if you left, you never were," or "if you were part, you still are." It creates a similar "catch-22" that is kind of silly to try to refute. Better to simply move on and let people think what they will of you.

That was the entire intent of my post.

[carpedm9587]

You're so used to twisting language that you have difficulty parsing even a straight-forward piece of logic. But this isn't about logic anyway but linguistics. The phrase "so as to appear to" means in appearance only. For example, "An illusionist uses sleight of hand so as to appear to make a coin vanish into thin air," or "carpe twists language and employs tortured logic so as to appear to be correct." Like I said, the definition doesn't help you.

I suggest you read the definition again, MM. And this time, include the entire sentence, including "especially."

Anyway, the only reason you think that things like raising someone from the dead or turning water into wine transcends the laws of nature is because you don't understand the natural processes at work, but that doesn't mean they're implausible or didn't happen - you're just appealing to ignorance and incredulity, an ironic gaffe from someone telling me that I need a course in logic.

So exactly which "law of nature" permits a man to bless water and it becomes wine in the casks? Or takes a man three days in the tomb to be resurrected (unless of course, he was never actually dead to begin with).

What about a man with atrophied limbs having them spontaneously restored to full health? Does that transcend the laws of nature?

As far as I know, yes. There is no biological process I know of that would restore an atrophied limb in a human. Some other species perhaps, but not in human biology. I have one.

You will have to insist it does or you will be forced to concede that the Bible records genuinely plausible miracles with Jesus causing the lame to walk and the blind to see,

...or the bible records events that never actually happened...as recorded

and yet lizards regrow their tails, and the Turritopsis dohrnii, a species of jellyfish, is effectively biologically immortal without transcending the laws of nature. Just because we don't understand how something works in nature doesn't mean that it violates the laws of nature. It just means it's a natural process that we don't understand.

We understand much about how those processes work - in those species. They are not part of human biology.

But you are committed to rejecting this line of reasoning before the debate even begins, because allowing that even a single miracle recorded in the Bible is plausible will cause your entire worldview to come crashing down around your ears.

MM, I actually miss some aspects of my Christian faith. There is no more sublime feeling than that of being infinitely loved. No deeper contentment than sitting contemplating my creator in the company thereof. I would welcome the first bonafide miracle that would cause me to rethink my existing beliefs and return to those things. Your post suggests you have little idea what motivates me.

[carpedm9587]

Look at the post I responded to - you did ALL of that. You SPECIFICALLY cast doubt on whether or not it (Apostolic martyrdom) is evidence.

OK. I've been back. I definitely cast doubt on "apostolic martyrdom" as credible evidence that Jesus was who he is claimed to be. That is because I do not find it to be credible evidence. There are simply too many other possible explanations for me to accept the most "out there" of the possibilities. I've outlined what I think those are in other posts. I'll let those stand.

As for the rest, my experience is that any attempt to clarify my thoughts/intentions is for naught, so I think I will save myself the typing.

[carpedm9587]

It does ignore unicorns, that's true. Skipping irrational 'possibilities' that do not fit the evidence is sound procedure - accepting any and all 'possibilities' in order to retain a favored position is unsound procedure. You can chase unicorns if you like - but you cannot retain the claim of rational assessment of the evidence when you do.

As you wish...

[carpedm9587]

No, it does NOT. He is asking you to defend your own premise that: "Would a person die for something they think is untrue, but the results of it they believe are honorable and good for humanity? I think that is possible. "

So consider the possibility that Jesus is actually not "god" or a miracle worker. His message of "love one another" and "return love for hate" and "forgiveness is yours" is a powerful one, one that has the potential to revolutionize the world. If it is backed by a widespread belief that it "comes from god," it could change the world. Am I correct that folks believe it is impossible that someone might look at that message, recognize its power and potential, and dedicate their lives to pushing this message forward, knowing that backing it with the power of "it comes from god" is untrue, but necessary for the message to take root? This is an "impossible" scenario?

It is certainly not a proven scenario, by any stretch of the imagination. But it is one of many possible/plausible scenarios of "what happened." I don't see anything about it that is "impossible."

[Roy]

So, let's see you do this '20 second' refutation of the mountain of evidence surrounding the Resurrection.

Ok.

There is not a mountain of evidence surrounding the resurrection. There are at best six accounts.
Three of these were definitely written by people who weren't there, and are based at least partly on the other, earlier accounts. Their veracity is dependent on that of the earlier accounts.
One was written by another person who wasn't there, and is repeating what he has been told.
One was probably written by some-one who wasn't there, but it's hard to be certain since we don't know who wrote it. However, it includes large swathes of text from an earlier account, so is unlikely to be an eye-witness account, and anyway includes details that the author could not possibly have known, as well as other indications that the author wasn't concerned with accuracy.
Which leaves the last one. It might be an eye-witness account, but the earliest versions contain no description of the resurrection. That is a later addition, and shows that the early church had no problem in rewriting history.

The evidence surrounding the resurrection shows only that people believed it had happened and were willing to make up stories to further that belief - not that it actually had happened.