Nobody Dies for a Lie

[Mountain Man]

So every historical document that was not written by an eyewitness, or which contains portions of other written accounts can be tossed out? Well then, there goes almost all of recorded human history.

[Starlight]

So exactly which "law of nature" permits a man to bless water and it becomes wine in the casks?

Quantum physics says the water and wine exist in a superposition within the cask, until it is opened, whereupon it will be found to contain a dead cat.

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."

Exactly. I think an evaluation of the gospels in light of social-context research shows Jesus as a social reformer who had a compelling message about the issues of his day and who pushed for a new society that overcame those issues. It was a powerful message, just as MLK Jr's similar type of message in the 20th century was powerful. And it has the ability to inspire others to action still today.

Yet so many evangelicals today ignore that teachings of Jesus in the gospels almost entirely, and instead read their own theology into the Greek words in order to mistranslate and misunderstand, and create a religion that centers on 'believing in' Jesus as 'God' for 'salvation' in the afterlife through his atoning work on the cross. So almost everything Jesus was about gets ignored, because his message is considered irrelevant, and only the new theology of believing 'in' him matters. Studying the history of Christian theological teachings across the centuries is kind of depressing as the former gradually morphs into the latter due to an accumulation of novel and errant theological inventions, until we end up with modern evangelicalism which bears almost zero resemblance to original Christianity on any essential matters.

[Roy]

So every historical document that was not written by an eyewitness, or which contains portions of other written accounts can be tossed out?

Found any evidence that the gospels were circulated in Galilee before Jesus' contemporaries died yet?

[carpedm9587]

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.

Life expectancy from the age of the bible to the 1700s didn't change all that much: 35-40 years. There are several sources that attest to this. Mark's Gospel is commonly dated to 68-70 AD, putting it 35+ years after the LAST of the events it records. It is the earliest of the Gospels, with Luke/Matt dated to the 80s (earliest) and John to the 90s (earliest), putting them 45+ and 55+ years after the events they record. Acts is likewise dated to the 90s.

Yes, it is possible some early witnesses still existed. But if they were young men/women in their late teens when Jesus died, they would have been 50+ at the time Mark was written, and that's the youngest they could have been. So the most likely scenario is that there was a smattering of old timers when Mark was written who were alive and credible witnesses (e.g., not toddlers) of the events. There would have been even fewer (if any) when Matt/Luke were written, and most likely none when John and Acts were written. The earliest of the Epistles we have is Thessalonians, which dates to around 51 AD, two decades into the life of the early church. Again, it means that any witnesses of Jesus who were old enough to have heard/understood him (let's say 10+?) would be 30+, approaching the life expectancy number.

It seems reasonable to me that, by the time Paul begins writing, the early church is populated more with people who never saw/witnessed Jesus than people who did, especially given the far-flung nature of these communities by the time Paul begins writing (Rome, Thessalonica, Corinthia, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Phillipi, etc.).

[carpedm9587]

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.

Oh wow. I find the expression "fake news" so corrosive, I rebel a bit at the idea of it being used about the bible. I don't think the bible is "fake news." I think it provides a history - but it is not the history many people take it to be. It is not a record of "what actually happened" with respect to Jesus. It is a record of what the early Christian community BELIEVED happened. The gospels were written 38-110 years after the events they purport to record. That's a great deal of time, and provides ample opportunity for a theology to develop. The books were written in the context of that developing theology.

[Starlight]

So every historical document that was not written by an eyewitness, or which contains portions of other written accounts can be tossed out? Well then, there goes almost all of recorded human history.

Yup. Honestly, most people today are, for pragmatic reasons, what I would call "historical agnostics". History doesn't affect their daily lives, they don't directly experience it, and so find no reason to have any particular belief in the truth or falsity of any historical claims, and tend to be generally skeptical of all historical claims, and tend to lack understanding regarding the methods historians use or what kinds of surviving historical evidence and documents there are. They do this because they have no reason to do otherwise, and no particular reason to spend much effort caring about history, because history does nothing to them if they ignore it.

So if you think "there goes almost all of recorded human history" is some kind of Reductio ad absurdum, let me note that I think probably the majority of people would be perfectly willing to embrace that absurdum and toss out all of human history as unobservable to them, and therefore untestable and unverifiable, and thus unbelievable. Getting people to believe even something like the Holocaust which occurred within the lifetime of some people still alive can be an effort at times. Expecting the populace at-large to buy-into the idea of a particular thing happening 2000 years ago, because you have some religious document that says it did, is pretty much a joke. Scientology with their document proclaiming Xenu the alien has about as much of a chance. JimL's "it's all fiction" approach to the NT is not an approach that most historians would agree with, but is incredibly common among the general populace who don't really believe in history in general.

Perhaps it's worth adding that I was recently reading one of Stephen Hawking's books and in it he argued that the implications of current quantum physical theory are that there was no one past or one future. Rather all possible pasts exist in superposition with one another (their possibilities interact), just as all possible futures do. So rather than there being One True History that Really Happened, the present moment was in fact caused by a combination of All Possible Histories. In this view, a statement like "Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure" doesn't even have a truth value - it is neither true nor false - it is true in some possible histories and false in other possible histories, and both the histories where he existed and the histories where he didn't have interacted together to create this current moment in time.

[carpedm9587]

So every historical document that was not written by an eyewitness, or which contains portions of other written accounts can be tossed out? Well then, there goes almost all of recorded human history.

Most historians will tell you that history is a fluid thing. When we get a scrap of information about the past, confidence in its accuracy ranges from tepid to "pretty darned sure." depending on how much it is corroborated and the nature of the corroboration. Multiple corroborations from independent sources is strongest to raise the bar of "certainty" fairly high. Corroboration from non-written sources is very strong (e.g., the actual Volcano and and ruins at Pompeii do a lot to corroborate Pliny's account).

When we apply that same assessment to the biblical narratives, there is some extra-scriptural verification for some elements (e.g., the reign of Herod, etc.). Almost all of the details about the life of Jesus, however, arise from within the same community (the Christian community). So they give us a strong historical view of the beliefs of that community. But there is not enough variation of source to give us high confidence about the details of Jesus' life. And there is reason to think the details should be questioned. When someone writing 38+ years after the events documents exact words spoken, there is reason to consider the possibility that the authors were putting a theology that had seen almost 4 decades of evolution into the mouth of their founder in the form of stories. There is no reason (IMO) to accept as true that an author who was very likely not present for the events would be able to accurately document a conversation between two individuals from four decades before. That is an unreasonable stretch.

And modern studies of how human memory functions suggest it is about as close to impossible as we can get.

[Starlight]

It is not a record of "what actually happened" with respect to Jesus. It is a record of what the early Christian community BELIEVED happened. The gospels were written 38-110 years after the events they purport to record. That's a great deal of time, and provides ample opportunity for a theology to develop. The books were written in the context of that developing theology.

I 100% agree. The gospels represent the beliefs of the early Christian communities in which they were written. That is not emphasized nearly enough in general IMO.

[Mountain Man]

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



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).



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.



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



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



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.

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."

Sorry, but the definition still doesn't help your argument because it does not imply that miracles actually transcend the laws of nature. They might have the appearance of doing so, but they don't actually. Think of it this way: a miracle is simply God operating within natural laws in ways that we don't understand.

And you missed my point regarding atrophied limbs. There are creatures in nature who can restore appendages, or even their entire being without violating the laws of nature, so why would it be a violation of the laws of nature if a human were to do something similar? Just because we don't know or understand how such a process might happen does not mean that it would transcend natural laws.

But I do like the escape hatch you've created for yourself, so that if you're ever in danger of having to concede that the Bible records a plausible miracle, you can simply assert that the record must be false and breath a sigh of relief. Is an impenetrable wall of skepticism really an admirable thing?

[carpedm9587]

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature."

Sorry, but the definition still doesn't help your argument because it does not imply that miracles actually transcend the laws of nature. They might have the appearance of doing so, but they don't actually. Think of it this way: a miracle is simply God operating within natural laws in ways that we don't understand.

The prefix "super" means "above" or "beyond." The term "supernatural" then means "above the natural" or "beyond natural." It describes things are not explicable by natural processes. Now you can add to that, if you wish, "maybe it's natural process we just don't understand yet," but that just means something that appears to be "supernatural" is not actually supernatural - it is natural according to an unknown process. But that is pretty broad speculation. It gives you license to label anything that would be labeled "supernatural" (e.g., ghosts, gods, spirits, etc.) as "possibly natural, but acting according to natural laws we have not yet discovered." There is no argument against that position, because it is based on what we don't know. The best I can say is, "not impossible." There is likewise no way for you to show it to be true.

The term miracle, which you appear to have shifted to in your response, is a different word. It can mean the results of supernatural action, but it can also mean, "very very unlikely," or "surprising," as in, "it's a miracle that my Uncle won the lottery!"

And you missed my point regarding atrophied limbs. There are creatures in nature who can restore appendages, or even their entire being without violating the laws of nature, so why would it be a violation of the laws of nature if a human were to do something similar? Just because we don't know or understand how such a process might happen does not mean that it would transcend natural laws.

Because that capability is not present in human biology. If we find a way to add it to human biology through gene manipulation, or some kind of medicine, then no "miracle." But if a preacher lays hands on a withered, atrophied human limb and it is restored to full health - that transcends the known laws of human biology.

But I do like the escape hatch you've created for yourself, so that if you're ever in danger of having to concede that the Bible records a plausible miracle, you can simply assert that the record must be false and breath a sigh of relief. Is an impenetrable wall of skepticism really an admirable thing?

I don't look for escape hatches. I look to see if claims can be supported by the available evidence. In the case of biblical miracles, the answer, IMO, is a resounding "no." You apparently come to a different conclusion, which is entirely your right to do. From my perception, you are accepting something as true without adequate evidence for doing so. From your perspective I am rejecting something as "most likely untrue" in defiance of the available evidence. I doubt we are going to resolve that dispute.

[Mountain Man]

Yup. Honestly, most people today are, for pragmatic reasons, what I would call "historical agnostics". History doesn't affect their daily lives, they don't directly experience it, and so find no reason to have any particular belief in the truth or falsity of any historical claims, and tend to be generally skeptical of all historical claims, and tend to lack understanding regarding the methods historians use or what kinds of surviving historical evidence and documents there are. They do this because they have no reason to do otherwise, and no particular reason to spend much effort caring about history, because history does nothing to them if they ignore it.

So if you think "there goes almost all of recorded human history" is some kind of Reductio ad absurdum, let me note that I think probably the majority of people would be perfectly willing to embrace that absurdum and toss out all of human history as unobservable to them, and therefore untestable and unverifiable, and thus unbelievable. Getting people to believe even something like the Holocaust which occurred within the lifetime of some people still alive can be an effort at times. Expecting the populace at-large to buy-into the idea of a particular thing happening 2000 years ago, because you have some religious document that says it did, is pretty much a joke. Scientology with their document proclaiming Xenu the alien has about as much of a chance. JimL's "it's all fiction" approach to the NT is not an approach that most historians would agree with, but is incredibly common among the general populace who don't really believe in history in general.

Perhaps it's worth adding that I was recently reading one of Stephen Hawking's books and in it he argued that the implications of current quantum physical theory are that there was no one past or one future. Rather all possible pasts exist in superposition with one another (their possibilities interact), just as all possible futures do. So rather than there being One True History that Really Happened, the present moment was in fact caused by a combination of All Possible Histories. In this view, a statement like "Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure" doesn't even have a truth value - it is neither true nor false - it is true in some possible histories and false in other possible histories, and both the histories where he existed and the histories where he didn't have interacted together to create this current moment in time.

Tossing out all of recorded human history just because you don't like the implication it has for the Bible is neither reasonable nor rational. And that Stephen Hawkings hypothesis reminds me of the joke that Douglas Adams once told about competing schools of thought that say, on the one hand, that time is an illusion caused by the passage of history, and on other, that history is an illusion caused by the passage of time.

[Mountain Man]

So every historical document that was not written by an eyewitness, or which contains portions of other written accounts can be tossed out?

Found any evidence that the gospels were circulated in Galilee before Jesus' contemporaries died yet?

You call my question a strawman, yet ironically, both Dimbulb and carpe have argued in its favor.

And I ask again, are you genuinely ignorant of early Christian history and are seeking enlightenment, or are you tossing out an ignorant rhetorical question and don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about the answer? Because if it's the latter, I'm not wasting my time.

[Sparko]

There are any number of possibilities. 1) They found value in the ideology, enabled by the Jesus myth; 2) they had actually come to believe their own stories to be true (the science of memory tells us this happens a LOT); 3) they had come to identify with their roles within the community; 4) the history of why they died and THAT they died, which is supported by fragments, is inaccurate.



Sparko - we have stories from all over the world of "faith healings," and a huge population of people who believe them - some of them who were actually there. We have precious little evidence of actual healings, and a huge swath of frauds and charlatans. You folks have locked into one possibility: it was all true. I have not dismissed all of the other possibilities because I do not have your "Christian myopia."

Raising people from the dead is a bit different from fake faith healings. Especially after there was a funeral and burial of someone who died of sickness. These people were not idiots. And then there was Jesus himself, crucified and raised from the dead. Kinda hard to fake that.

I understand the need for you to find some way to rationalize it away Carp. Otherwise you have to admit Jesus was who he said he was.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything, Sparko. I can't. Neither can you. We have fragmentary history, written well after the events they purport, by authors unknown (with the possible exception of Paul's letters). You accept one interpretation as "the truth." You are free to do so. I look at it in the light of modern discoveries about memory, human psychology, historical methodology, and conclude, "we cannot know it is true." When I look at it in light of all other religions, as well as what natural science has taught us, I conclude, "it's most likely not true."

You have to come to your own conclusions. You clearly have - but how you got to them (at least what you've shared) I do not find compelling. ergo, I don't have those views.

You made certain claims about what "happened" based on nothing but your own conjecture and expect that to refute actual written documents and 2000 years of history. Without any evidence. Sorry but that doesn't cut it. Your conjectures are no more valid than some kook who claims Jesus was an alien who was taken back aboard the mothership.

[Sparko]

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.

He was not given a choice or chance to confess. He was shot during a riot. He fully expected to get off and continue his charade. Hie and the mormons were not hunted down and stoned and burned at the stake and tortured and systematically destroyed like the Christian were. They had a relatively peaceful existence and a lot of space to get away from those who persecuted them.

[carpedm9587]

Raising people from the dead is a bit different from fake faith healings. Especially after there was a funeral and burial of someone who died of sickness. These people were not idiots. And then there was Jesus himself, crucified and raised from the dead. Kinda hard to fake that.

I understand the need for you to find some way to rationalize it away Carp. Otherwise you have to admit Jesus was who he said he was.

The point, Sparko, is that we do not KNOW what Jesus said about himself. What we know is what the mid-late 1st century Christian community believed Jesus said about himself. I find it far more likely that the authors placed in the mouth of Jesus the theology that had evolved over a period of 40+ years than that they accurately wrote down, 40+ years later, the actual words of Jesus.

You made certain claims about what "happened" based on nothing but your own conjecture and expect that to refute actual written documents and 2000 years of history. Without any evidence. Sorry but that doesn't cut it. Your conjectures are no more valid than some kook who claims Jesus was an alien who was taken back aboard the mothership.

Actually, not "without any evidence." My evidence is the extensive passage of time before writing, the extensive distribution of the communities, the evidence in the historical sequence of an evolving theology, modern science about the function of human memory, best practices from the historical community, widespread debunking of so-called "miracles," and the list goes on.

So you can call it "evidence you do not accept," but the claim that it is "no evidence" is simply false. It is evidence I find compelling, and you do not. That much appears to be true.