1. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    31 Dec '07 03:35
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Point out to me where I have copied and pasted ?

    This is a false charge which I don't appreciate.

    I think many of us repeat things which we have studied or read from other sources. I do sometimes. But I rarely copy and paste paragraphs from other documents.

    So, you will find it very difficult to find anything on this forum that I simply copied and pasted into the comment spot. And I have been using the forum for over a year, maybe more.
    It's not an accusation. I've simply had Christians copy-paste on me too often. Sometimes I suspect that it's being suggested on some Christian websites or something. But I'll say no more about it and I apologize if I offended you.
  2. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    31 Dec '07 04:095 edits
    Originally posted by doodinthemood
    Thank you so much for outlining the whole of the case. This is brilliant. After the arguments get removed, you will concede that there is no case at all, which is even better still.

    1 - This can instantly be shown to be a false argument by just applying to every other scripture. If the Koran lies, who invented the lie and for what reason? If the ved ...[text shortened]...
    1 - This can instantly be shown to be a false argument by just applying to every other scripture. If the Koran lies, who invented the lie and for what reason? If the vedas lie... and so on.

    What we are considering here are the outrageous claims that Christ was divine, that he rose from the dead, etc. There is testimony from one of the early church fathers, who studied at the feet of the apostles, which corroborates the scriptural evidence that the apostles were indeed witness to Christ's resurrection and had parroted Christ's teachings regarding his divinity throughout the world (i.e., Clement of Rome). For this witness the apostles were persecuted and eventually killed. Again, the question is not whether what the apostles taught was true or not, since it is possible to die for something mistakenly believed to be true, but whether the apostles would die for something they knew wasn't true.

    Firstly, you are using an outrageously exaggerated synonym for fiction, thus are working on the assumption that anything false has resulted from a lie. When phrased like that, you can see that the assumption is unhelpful to any logical argument, so I'll remove it and thus rephrase what's been said: "If the gospels are false, who made up the falsity, and for what reason? If it was Jesus' apostles, what did they get out of the falsehood?"

    The rewording of the argument is unnecessary since there isn't really a distinction between a "made up a falsity" and a lie. You are stating the exact same thing, just with different words.

    Claim (1) is not addressing whether what the apostles claimed is true or not, only whether they intentionally misrepresented the truth.

    (also 'a liar always has some selfish motive' is complete and utter rubbish - you tell your children that father christmas exists. You tell your wife she doesn't look fat in a dress. Furthermore, if we take away your falsity=lie assumption from this argument as well, it becomes even more shakey. What was the selfish reason behind people saying the plum pudding model of atoms was correct? No selfish reason, they were just wrong.)

    Your examples here do not support your claim.

    Firstly, burden of evidence. Who's to say jesus' apostles existed? The only evidence we have is the gospels, which can be disregarded as evidence owing to their other extraordinary claims.

    Disregarding the NT because of its extraordinary claims would be tantamount to disregarding Plato's historicity due to his Theory of Forms. We don't deny the historicity of an ancient document simply due to what we consider to be outrageous claims. By all objective standards the NT is a legitimate document of historic events, and your refusal to acknowledge it as such is only due to prejudice or ideology.

    Linus and Clement of Rome are two early church fathers who were contemporaries of the apostles and taught by them. Both are mentioned in the NT. Clement of Rome has writings of his own which survive to this day.

    Secondly, if we just talk about first generation christians (though they're hard to pinpoint) what did they get out of it? The same thing christians today get out of it I would have thought. Christianity would have given them a sense of happiness, a sense of meaning, and a sense of knowledge of the divine.

    The first generation of Christians would also have witnessed the innumerable miracles which Jesus performed during his earthly ministry; their faith rested in the evidence they witnessed with their own eyes. And remarkably there is no evidence of any witnesses to Christ's ministry refuting the claims of the apostles. Your suggestion that the apostles lied about Jesus in order to pacify the multitudes is inconsistent with the historical data.

    _________________________________

    Thanks for the response; I will finish addressing the issues which you have raised as time becomes available.

    Peace.
  3. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    31 Dec '07 06:18
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    [b]Bottom line: these guys may well have some authority to speak about (at least their understanding) of Christianity. Anything they say about Judaism or Buddhism, say, ought to be taken with a large dose of (purgative) salt.

    I thought you'd have some choice words for that section, vistesd. Agreed. I questioned whether I should include the Jud ...[text shortened]... eir argument that Christ was not a misinterpreted mystic hold up in light of your reservations?[/b]
    Last post for awhile.

    I think he may have been exactly that. Misinterpreted by whom is another question (depends on how various NT writers are read, how one reads their symbolism, etc.).

    You know me well enough to fill in the gaps here. You know my oft-quoted Zen saying about our words and concepts and symbols and stories being “fingers pointing at the moon”, and how it is a mistake to focus on the finger. And yet, we still spend most of our time discussing and debating the “fingers.”

    All analogies are limited, including that one. The “moon” is not wholly separate, but is the ground of our very being, the ground from which, in which and of which we are. Consider, in that light, Jesus’ “I am” statements, and identification with the Abba. The cultural (and philosophic and religious) underpinnings, and the language (therefore), differ, but there are nevertheless cross-cultural comparisons.

    Jesus said “I am”, and “the father and I are one”, and (quoting from the Psalms) “I say you are gods”, and “You will do even greater things than I”, etc. He was called the Son and the Christ (the anointed).

    Siddhartha Gautama was known as the tathagata (the “thus come one” ) because of his reflection of the tathata.

    Zen master Lin Chi often pointed to himself as demonstrating the Tao in his being, as well as his words: “When have I ever not shown you that?”

    The Upanishads say tat tvam asi (“that [is what] you are” ) and ayam atma brahma (“this very self is Brahman” ).

    I say, You are the Buddha. And I ask, Why do you not say that you are the Christ?

    Here, as I think you can see, dualism and non-dualism form two different hermeneutical perspectives. Consider, for example, the name of God from the point of view of a Jewish non-dualism: aheyeh asher aheyeh—I am that I am. And YHVH literally means “that which/who is.” Now consider the singular Jewish creedal statement:

    Sh’ma Yisrael, YHVH Eloheinu, YHVH echad

    “Hear, O Israel, That-Who-Is, our God, That-Who-Is is One.”

    The so-called perennial philosophy has deep roots in Judaism; as deep, I think, as exoteric monotheism.

    No one—no one—can read any of these texts except through some hermeneutical lenses; lenses put on prior to reading.

    _____________________________________

    In one sense, mysticism is very mundane—or, rather, homely (in the old sense of that word). A good introduction, in that spirit, to Jewish mysticism is Rabbi Lawrence Kushner’s Honey from the Rock.

    Be well.
  4. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 06:26
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It's not an accusation. I've simply had Christians copy-paste on me too often. Sometimes I suspect that it's being suggested on some Christian websites or something. But I'll say no more about it and I apologize if I offended you.
    Overlooked and forgiven.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 06:453 edits
    doodinthemood,

    =============================
    "If the gospels are false, who made up the falsity, and for what reason? If it was Jesus' apostles, what did they get out of the falsehood?" (also 'a liar always has some selfish motive' is complete and utter rubbish - you tell your children that father christmas exists. You tell your wife she doesn't look fat in a dress. Furthermore, if we take away your falsity=lie assumption from this argument as well, it becomes even more shakey. What was the selfish reason behind people saying the plum pudding model of atoms was correct? No selfish reason, they were just wrong.)
    ===================================


    I fail to see here how you show it is "utter rubbish" that lying stems from a selfish motive. I don't see the rubbish. I don't see the "utter" rubbish either.

    In the case of plum pudding model of atoms, I think you are simply talking about a misconception in theory and not a deliberate lie.

    There have been misconceptions in theory where mistakes, not lies, were propogated. So I discount examples like that.

    I can see selfish reasons in both your examples of "father christmas" used to entertain children with falsehood or flattery in the case of telling your wife she's not fat. They may not be vicious lies. But they are used to gain an advantage of the other's naivete.

    Oh, telling your wife she does not look fat in a dress could simply be one's subjective opinion hard to qualify. She in fact may not look "ugly" fat and you want her not to feel that way. Not the best example of something requireing elaborate fictional biographical material to propogate a hoax of the existence of someone like Jesus.

    And I don't think you have examples here which compare to elaborate hoax material which would have to be concocted by fishermen in order to "invent" a character like Jesus of Nazareth and place false words in His mouth.
  6. Joined
    31 May '07
    Moves
    696
    31 Dec '07 10:02

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  7. Joined
    31 May '07
    Moves
    696
    31 Dec '07 10:12
    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    but whether the apostles would die for something they knew wasn't true.And it's fairly damn obvious that they wouldn't.

    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    The rewording of the argument is unnecessary since there isn't really a distinction between a "made up a falsity" and a lie. You are stating the exact same thing, just with different words.
    No I'm not. Not everything that isn't true is a lie yaknow? You wouldn't stand outside a bookstore that's selling Harry Potter, screaming out that everything in the book is "lies all lies!" You wouldn't say that people who believed in the plum pudding model of atoms were liars. You wouldn't say that greek mythology is a bunch of lies.

    Because these things aren't lies, they're just really bad attempts at the truth.

    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Claim (1) is not addressing whether what the apostles claimed is true or not, only whether they intentionally misrepresented the truth.
    Yes, and it still suits us much better to use the word "falsehood" over "lie" because all lies are falsehoods but not all falsehoods are lies. The word "falsehood" is necessary, but not sufficient for the word "lie". It is possible that the text could be false without being a lie, but the way the question is worded uses the opposite as an assumption. That's not good practice, so I've corrected it.


    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Your examples here do not support your claim.
    Yes they do. The original post made the radically wrong statement that lies were always for selfish reasons. I've given two examples of when this isn't the case, and then a further example with the correction of lie>falsehood. They completely destroy the original incorrect statement.


    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    We don't deny the historicity of an ancient document simply due to what we consider to be outrageous claims.
    Oh yes we do. We do it all the time. There are thousands of texts recounting the actions of the egyptian gods. Why do we ignore them? Because they reek of rubbish, and that's what they are. That is the ONLY reason we ignore them. They are corroborative. They rarely contradict. They are in good condition. We ignore them because they make outrageous claims.

    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    By all objective standards the NT is a legitimate document of historic events,
    So, there's a story of a deity who becomes a man, does a few magic tricks, then dies then comes back to life and everybody who doesn't believe this story is historically accurate isn't being objective? You're just being silly now.

    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Linus and Clement of Rome are two early church fathers who were contemporaries of the apostles and taught by them. Both are mentioned in the NT. Clement of Rome has writings of his own which survive to this day.
    WTF? Kings Cross station was constructed in 1852. It's mentioned in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone. What on earth are you wittering on about? At least the original post had something of coherent arguments. You seem to be dipping into a book of scholarship, taking out random passages and pretending they're an argument for belief in scripture unto themselves.

    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    remarkably there is no evidence of any witnesses to Christ's ministry refuting the claims of the apostles.
    And that's remarkable why? You find me evidence of a witness to Thor's ministry refuting the claims made about him.

    Originally posted by epiphinehas
    Your suggestion that the apostles lied about Jesus in order to pacify the multitudes is inconsistent with the historical data.
    That suggestion is inconsistent yes. I'm glad I never suggested it. Straw man, how can you sleep at night?

    Originally posted by jaywill
    In the case of plum pudding model of atoms, I think you are simply talking about a misconception in theory and not a deliberate lie.
    Yes. I even said in the post that's what I was doing, because that's much much more likely than it being an actual lie.


    Originally posted by jaywill
    There have been misconceptions in theory where mistakes, not lies, were propogated. So I discount examples like that.
    You discount the idea that ancient myths can be misconceptions? You think all of greek mythology was somebody just lying through his teeth? Because that's an absurd position to take, and assuming you do not take it, you should not discount the example.

    Originally posted by jaywill
    But they are used to gain an advantage of the other's naivete.
    Telling a kid something exists so you can spend hundreds of pounds buying him gifts and not being thanked for it afterwards is an advantage? It's significantly more advantageous to tell him father christmas doesn't exist.

    Originally posted by jaywill
    And I don't think you have examples here which compare to elaborate hoax material which would have to be concocted by fishermen in order to "invent" a character like Jesus of Nazareth and place false words in His mouth.
    That's because I wasn't mounting any such argument. I was just showing that many of the generalisations used in the text are wrong, and whenever an assumption is wrong, the argument is wrong, because it doesn't account for other possibilities opened up when the assumption is removed. I consider the idea that the story was a "lie" somewhat far-fetched, anyway.
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 13:194 edits
    =================================
    You discount the idea that ancient myths can be misconceptions?
    =====================================



    This doesn't read like myth creation to me:

    "Now in the fifteenth year of the goverment of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch or Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness." (Luke 3:1,2)

    That reads to me like historical writing and not myth spinning. I think most historians would agree.
  9. Joined
    31 May '07
    Moves
    696
    31 Dec '07 16:23
    yes? And if a myth was written into a historical timeframe?

    There's something about religion that makes too many people switch off and require spoonfeeding.
  10. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    31 Dec '07 18:571 edit
    Originally posted by doodinthemood
    yes? And if a myth was written into a historical timeframe?

    There's something about religion that makes too many people switch off and require spoonfeeding.
    There's something about the conspiracy theories of some skeptics which require more of a socalled "blind leap of faith" than simply believing the account of the Gospels.


    From the chapter of Luke that I quoted can you tell me precisely which verses are the shoe horned in "myth" to the surrounding historical framework.

    Get down to specific verses please.
  11. Joined
    31 May '07
    Moves
    696
    31 Dec '07 20:35
    How on earth is saying a bronze age myth probably isn't true a conspiracy theory? Would you say the vedas aren't true? If so, then you're believing some wild conspiracy theory! No, there were hundreds of cults saying different things about deities around the time the bible was written and just because one is popular, that doesn't mean it should suddenly get special treatment over the others.

    The christian canon is a bunch of writings that are mythical in nature and presented as fact. Fair enough, so is every single other religious text, and there are good enough explanations for how religious texts come about. A set of beliefs arise and a liking is taken to them, they pass on through oral tradition and somebody eventually writes them down as they believed they took place. "it has seemed right to me also, after careful investigation of the facts from their commencement, to write for you, most noble Theophilus, a connected account" - Luke 1:3.
    Luke isn't being deceptive (most probably. There's the very odd possibility that he is, but we can ignore that) but he is putting into writing what he understands of goings on.
  12. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    31 Dec '07 23:261 edit
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole

    Aquinas argued that if the Incarnation did not really happen, then an even more unbelievable miracle happened: the conversion of the world by the biggest lie in history and the moral transformation of lives into unselfishness, detachment from worldly pleasures and radically new heights of holiness by a mere myth.


    As has already been point , conditions that might have favored another religion, but that happened to favor Christianity.[/b]
    As has already been pointed out, Christianity need not have come into being as a conspiratorial lie, but rather as a shared illusion.

    But what historical proof do you have which backs this idea?

    In comparison, I have several corroborating accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) attesting to the apostles having been eye-witness to the resurrected Christ. Paul, whose letters predate the synoptic gospels, recorded that on one occasion more than five-hundred people had witnessed the resurrected Christ.

    For the early church the divinity of Christ was not something believed based on the accounts of others; they did not have to believe that Christ was divine, they witnessed his divinity first-hand and knew the reality of his resurrection.

    Again, if the divinity of Jesus were a foreign concept foisted on a merely human Jesus after his death, then where is the historical evidence of any followers of the merely human Jesus refuting his subsequent "divinization"? There isn't any such evidence. In light of this fact, the best explanation of the historical data remains: the first generation of Christians, those who witnessed the earthly ministry of Jesus and his innumerable miracles, were already witness to his divinity and that his divinity was therefore already widely known throughout Judea.

    There is no historical evidence which refutes this. Even the enemies of Christ, the Scribes and Pharisees, admitted that Christ performed miracles and claimed to be God. If Christ's divinity was a shared illusion, then it would not only be inconsistent with the historical data, a shared illusion would be more improbable than the miracles which Christ reportedly performed.

    You have to ask yourself: was it more probable that this man fooled both his enemies and allies within an entire nation, subsequently transforming the lives of billions of people throughout history, or that Christ was indeed who he claimed to be and clearly demonstrated his authority as the Son of God through his miracles and through the resurrection, as the historical data suggests?

    Ockham's razor: All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. As soon as one departs from the Christian explanation of the historical data, you begin to encounter more and more inconsistencies and improbabilities. Again, what evidence do you have to support the idea that the early church was under the sway of a shared illusion? Respectfully, none.

    Can anyone be certain that there is not in human nature, independent of God, the potential for Christianity to emerge as a collective illusion? Do we know enough of human nature to exclude this possibility? I submit that it would be presumptuous to assume as much. Indeed, there is plenty of collateral evidence that human being are capable of imagining any number of impossible things before breakfast, of misunderstanding the causes of their psychological states, of tending to acquire belief in disincarnate spirits, of linking morality to such beliefs, etc.

    I understand your point, but again, does the historical data bear out this possibility? Does your theory explain what we know of ancient history better than the orthodox view? Remember Ockham's razor...

    (Aside 1: Suppose we concede that the effects of Christianity are inexplicably potent naturalistically, but note that they are not uniformly positive. Would that count as evidence for or against Christianity being true?)

    It's awfully difficult to comment on this, because neither of us have at our fingertips knowledge of the true overall effect of Christ on the world. Yes, there were the crusades, which were and are scripturally unjustifiable. But what are the effects of accurately applied Christian teaching? At least according to my limited knowledge I can't recall anything negative.

    (Aside 2: Suppose an alternative religion to Christianity--like Buddhism, Hinduism, or Islam--also had extremely potent and good effects, verging on the otherwise inexplicable, at least according to the intuitions of some. By the same argument, these effects would suggest these religions were true. However, there exist, at the very least, substantial incompatibilities between the tenets of these different religions and Christianity, and indeed, between the tenets of these different religions themselves. How are these incompatibilities to be resolved? Or suppose that Islam gained ground, and Christianity lost it, in terms of numbers. Would that imply that the true values associated with the propositions asserted by one religion or the other would switch?)

    The point is, it is more improbable that something good can be attributed to a lie than that something good can be attributed to a truth. Aquinas, no doubt, did not mean this as the sole proof of Christianity's truth; a subjective consideration, I agree. If the founders of every religion were merely men, Christianity included, then any given religion's overall effect would be the only proof of its validity.

    But that which distinguishes Christ from the founders of other religions is his claim to divinity, a claim which, if true, makes his demands upon humanity universally applicable. That means you, me, and everyone we meet, must all be ultimately responsible to Christ -- if he is Lord. Therefore, Christ's divinity remains the central issue, and the historical data happens to show evidence of his claim to divinity (i.e., his miracles and resurrection).

    The histories of Alexander the Great were written four-hundred years after his death, yet no one discounts their historical validity. The record of Christ was written within the first several decades after his resurrection, and yet his record is considered by some to be dubious. All things being equal, this inconsistency can only be attributed to either prejudice or ideology.

    Third, there is a strong Darwinian-style argument against the arguments for potency and positivity adduced in favor of Christianity. Suppose, over the course of history, you had N number of self-styled gurus. These would then arguably exhibit a (possibly skewed) Gaussian distribution of success in attaining converts. A few, perhaps the least charismatic with the least receptive audiences, would give up after a week; most would exhibit a degree of success due to their native talents and the enthusiasm of followers, but still only sufficient to found an evanscent cult; but a few, in the positive tail of the distribution, would manage to found a major world religion, because the other manifold conditions necessary for it to take permanent root would be, out of sheer luck, present. So basically, Christianity struck it lucky. There were lots of other losers in the religion race, but we never hear from them, because they are lost in the sands of time. Hence, it isn't the case that the intrinsic merits of Christianity are entirely responsible for whatever potent and positive effects can be justly attributed to it, but rather also, and probably to a huge and unappreciated extent, that the extrinsic conditions were ripe for its emergence, conditions that might have favored another religion, but that happened to favor Christianity.

    In a vacuum devoid of historical record, this theory of religious evolution might be tenable. But there is a historical record. What does it show? Does is it bear out your hypothesis? What is the simplest explanation for the data?
  13. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    31 Dec '07 23:451 edit
    Originally posted by doodinthemood
    Thank you so much for outlining the whole of the case. This is brilliant. After the arguments get removed, you will concede that there is no case at all, which is even better still.

    1 - This can instantly be shown to be a false argument by just applying to every other scripture. If the Koran lies, who invented the lie and for what reason? If the ved
    "The enemies of christianity would have needed only one recanting from one of jesus' disciples in order to destroy the upstart religion". Where on earth do you get that crazy idea from? One person moves away from christianity so the whole of christianity is never born? That's just rubbish. By the time christianity was big enough to rationalise attempted extermination by those in charge, it wouldn't have affected it at all for one of their members to walk off. In actuality, there's a reasonable possibility that the recantings would have helped. If you have 10 christians, and they all get tortured, and not one of them loses faith, they all die. Bam, end of christianity. If, however, one recants. He gets allowed to live, and later regains his faith. Christianity lives on! This wouldn't be an especially important event on the large scale, so I can't see recanting having anything to do with the survival of christianity.

    Your explanation why one disciple's recanting would not destroy Christianity is completely unconvincing. After all, we are not talking about regular everyday Christians here, but Christ's own disciples. These are the people who traveled with Jesus throughout his ministry and who witnessed his resurrection -- the leaders of the early church.

    "They used many forms of torture and bribery and never succeeded."
    Can you present some evidence for this? And I'm going to need a fair bit of evidence to accept such an outrageous claim.


    Do you think that history would fail to record the fact that one or two of the apostles recanted their position and revealed that the whole divine Jesus thing was a hoax?
  14. Illinois
    Joined
    20 Mar '07
    Moves
    6804
    01 Jan '08 00:491 edit
    Originally posted by doodinthemood
    Thank you so much for outlining the whole of the case. This is brilliant. After the arguments get removed, you will concede that there is no case at all, which is even better still.

    1 - This can instantly be shown to be a false argument by just applying to every other scripture. If the Koran lies, who invented the lie and for what reason? If the ved
    3 - "What force sent Christians to the lion's den with hymns on their lips?" Belief? Religion? What force makes a Muslim so happy to kill himself knowing he's going to heaven? Tis the same one.

    The point is, Christians changed the world by the sanctity with which they died. The effect is contrary to the tact of the Muslim extremist, which spreads fear and ill will.

    "What falsehood ever gave millions a moral fortitude?" Who's to say it gives anybody a moral fortitude? When there are moral religious people, immoral religious people, moral atheists and immoral atheists, then how can you see any link at all?

    Moral fortitude here refers specifically to the sanctity with which one is able to meet unjust persecution and death. How can a lie have the effect of producing inexplicable joy and peace in the face of a grim fate?

    "Christianity conquered the world mainly through the force of sanctity and love." You go against every main theory with that. The best reason given for Christianity conquering the world (in my opinion) is Paul of Tarsus who was a scheming fellow who proselytized, making sure to emphasize the appealing aspects of christianity. Namely, heaven. If Christianity didn't have the idea of heaven, then all the love in the world wouldn't have made it spread.

    Where do you get, "Paul of Tarsus... was a scheming fellow"? What proof do you have of that?

    Furthermore, I'd be quite surprised if you've even read Paul's writings in any detail, considering your preposterous claim that he "emphasized the appealing aspects of Christianity. Namely, heaven." This statement is groundless and belies ignorance and strong personal bias. I hope you do not fancy yourself an open-minded skeptic at this point.

    "Saints are not liars" Correct, just as Mullah's and Rabbis aren't either. Just as everybody in the world when the plum pudding model of atoms was around wasn't a "liar", they were just wrong. Sincere, but wrong.

    How do you know Christians are sincere, but wrong? What epistemic proof do you have which you've gleaned from methodological naturalism qualifying you to make that statement? The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, sir.

    4 - Who were the naive fools who first believed it? Very very hard to say. The first written accounts are obviously by people who believed it, but evidence from them (take Luke, who starts by saying he's gathering information from what people are saying right at the beginning of his letter) indicates that there was an oral tradition beforehand. Who first believed it is a question that lies back in antiquity, never to be answered.

    You are attempting to cloud what is otherwise quite obvious: of the twenty-seven books of the NT, twenty-five were written by Jews. It is not hard to say who the first people to believe the Gospel were -- the Jews.


    "god became... a crucified criminal". Exaggeration here. Whoever reads the bible and concludes that God was a criminal has a screw loose.

    It is not an exaggeration that Christ was crucified as a criminal. He was charged with heresy by the Jewish priests and put to death for his imagined crimes.

    "god became a man... hardly a myth that naturally arises in the Jewish mind" Correct, sort of. They wouldn't have gone to Christianity instinctively, that's for sure. That's why the evangelism was necessary. After the message is out though, it's very believable.

    Why is the message believable?

    6 - A few points here. Firstly, There's not much evidence, if any at all, that there was a real Jesus.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for starters. Also, the writings of the early church fathers, Linus, Clement of Rome, etc. Various philosophers, historians and writers alive during that time all mention him, including Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Josephus, Thallus and Phlegon, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar-Serapion, Suetonius, etc. Your claim that there's not much evidence is simply misinformed.

    WOAH! you just claimed there's historical data for Jesus to have existed and claimed to be god. I NEED TO SEE THIS DATA. I've studied the historicity of Jesus for so long and it's somehow managed to pass me by.

    The New Testament.

    9 - The test used on other ancient documents is this: "if it talks about gods, label it mythology and look at it in a social context" "If it talks about royalty, sort out the bits that talk about royalty's connection with the gods from the bits that talk about royalty's actions and make sure the actions fit with other evidence. If they do, it's reliable." Just as with writings that start talking about what Odin does, the texts should be historically disregarded, apart from when it is of interest where a particular story came from, like Noah's ark, where other cultures have similar myths, attributing them to many gods and spirits.

    First of all, claim (9) deals with the reliability of the texts, not the content. The documents we have are mutually reinforcing and therefore we have an extremely accurate idea what they have communicated from the very earliest times. Secondly, the NT is not blatantly mythological. It is written in an eye-witness style and clearly meant to be a record of actual events.
  15. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    01 Jan '08 02:52
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Overlooked and forgiven.
    I've given you two such inconsistencies. Did Jesus appear to Mary Magdaline, and was he recognized? When was Jesus born?

    Did you miss them?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree