Here’s a bit of a take-off (thanks Carol).This article refers to an ongoing discussion of a very old topic — the moral compass of Atheists. Some of our critics choose to think that since we have no bible, we can have no objective source for our morality.They’re right. We Don’t.Our detractors’ flaw is in their premise — they don’t have one either. They have their own ideas, find it in the Bible, and then SAY that their ideas are absolute and objective, when in fact they are just personal opinion.For example, Many of our Christian and Jewish friends look at the first part of Lev 20:13 (”If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination”) as an objective judgement against homosexual behavior. They choose to ignore the second part of the SAME SENTENCE (”they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them”). Because they find that PART of the sentence immoral, they find a way to ignore it, don’t talk about it, and don’t teach it to their kids, making that PART of the sentence somehow not-objective-truth, even though they are words of God himself, and in the same sentence as the words they hold dear. One part of the sentence is morality — the next part is not.Another example is how slavery was/is viewed. The very phrases in Exodus that the slave traders used to justify their wretched industry merely 200 years ago (Ex 20-21) are now dismissed by nearly everyone of conscience as “a sign of the different times”. Same phrase, different meaning, giving far different moral views.See where I’m going? They CHOOSE their own morality just as we all do. The only difference is that they support/blame their decision on the Bible, and we must be responsible for our own opinions. Their trap is sprung when we forget this fact — when we try to point out our objective source for morality, which does not exist. We fail, and their point is made. This universe is not made up of blacks and whites — rather shades of gray. Objective moral laws are myths — like the gods who make them.
Dagny2,
Thanks, but she’s pentecostal, and as I said, a damn good employee. I wanted to share the story because sometimes you just have to accept people as they are, laugh it off and “go with the flow”. In other words, it’s not my mission to enlighten her. She’s happy, I’m happy, and we agree to disagree. It’s easier when it’s an employee and not a family member.
Susan
I loved Dagny2’s response to your post! I was thinking more on the lines of next time, give the employee a framed “Good Job” certificate, and tell her God said that was all she needed.
I know you wouldn’t do a thing like that. But since you say the two of you agree to disagree, can’t you say something to her about quieting her emotional religious outbursts at work?
Maybe she could wait till she gets back to her desk and say a silent thankful prayer?
Peach63
“You have GOT to be kidding here.”
Well, truthfully, i haven’t got any specific data. But again, why couldn’t it happen? My christian brothers and sisters don’t intentionally lie to each other. Besides, what good would it do to claim somebodys been raised from the dead if it didnt’ happen? Like we would lose our faith it it didn’t. Nope.
“reluctant addressed this. People die all the time for something they really believe in, but is not necessarily true. Not a valid argument.”
“Where is the difference? I fail to see it. I really think you’re grasping at straws here.”
It is a big difference dying for something you believe is true and dying for something you know is a lie. Which the disciples had known if they’d made up the story about the resurrection.
But no one ever denied that it happened.
“The Jews did. If this really happened, why wasn’t the large majority of the Hebrew population convinced?”
Because Jesus, the suffering Lord, didn’t match their expectations of Messias.
“You are trying to say that you believe because of “eyewitness” accounts. These “eyewitnesses” have been dead for thousands of years.”
Of course they have, it happened 2000 years ago.
“You have to take into account the times and superstitions of the people.”
Correct. But given that the Jews were a very religious people they didn’t have that much influence from superstition or pagan religion.
“Again, WHY were they such a small, small, minority? Could it be because no one found their story credible? This is where it would really help if you would actually learn the history of Christianity and the making of the Bible.”
Yes but that wasn’t the question. The point is that they were way too small to force their beliefs upon anyone. In fact, considering the small amount of disciples and lack of modern communication such as telephone, e-mail etc. it is quite amazing that the gospel has spread to the extent that it has.
“Paul was a very savvy, forceful man. It was his way or the highway. He obviously believed the message and was apparently a charismatic enough preacher to convince many more people, thereby increasing the following of the cult. Paul inserted many of his personal opinions into it, though. Like how he obviously hated women. Again, research the history.”
That would be completely pointless. What good would it do Paul to increase the following of the “cult”? Notice that Paul always points the attention to Christ and not to himself.
Reluctant
“Goose is getting a tad confused about the timelines. Trajan was the emperor in the 1st CE, approx. around when JC was doing his ministry thing.
Note also, the term xtian wasn’t being used until Paul’s time (50-55 CE?), where it was coined in Antioch. Paul was persecuting the Nazarenes/Nazerites, not xtians.”
Did i mention any emperors? Well i was referring to the times of the first congregation, not to the time when Christianity became official faith as Peach62 mentioned.
Anyhow, Paul claims to have persecuted the christians in his writings, why should we then assume that he persecuted Nazarenes?
Goose,
Of course you don’t have specific data. That’s how these things are spread. People go to great pains to be as vague as possible. Like I’ll bet you can’t get the names of any of these re-animated corpses.
Why COULDN’T it happen? Because it is so very extraordinary. You seem so casual about it. “Oh, yeah, I had a great weekend, went to a concert with some friends, went to dinner, someone saw someone raised from the dead Saturday night….” !?! I am just simply saying that it is an extraordinary claim that bears investigating before it is believed. I know how these “healers” work at these revivals. They may bring someone up on a stretcher that they say is “dead” when in fact they’re not. I’m just saying that before I believe someone is raised from the “dead”, I would have to be unshakably convinced that they were dead to begin with. Even when I was still a theist, had someone mentioned to me that “people were being raised from the dead” at such-and-such church, I would have responded with “that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” I guess you just have to be born a skeptic.
All these people do is take someone else’s word for it, who in turn took someone’s word for it, and you’re just in line perpetuating the rumor. As soon as someone starts trying to verify facts, no one can remember anything for sure. It’s another “feel-good” message spread by the hopeful. The people who start these rumors are cruel, I think, preying upon the minds of the faithful who want to hear these things as confirmation of their faith. They perform these hoaxes and spread these rumors for a reason: to keep people like yourself convinced that there is a reason to believe, keep you in the faith and keep the money rolling in.
Peach,
Well said.
Once again, let’s think about the claims Goose is making. People raised from the dead and cured of cancer, simply by magic. I can’t take that seriously at ALL. Might as well say “Santa flew down and cured them” or “The easter bunny fed them magical chocolate” or “Harry Potter used his wand to do it!”
The interesting about Harry Potter is that it is much more realistic, specific, and well-written than the bible. If it had been labelled non-fiction, how many idiots would have blindly begun to worship Dumbledore?
the interesting THING***
Peach63
Ok, i feel this tread is dying but i would like to add that hearing about people being raised from the dead isn’t what keeps me in the faith.
Of course, i would like to see it for myself, i am not as naive as i might seem from my posts.
I once heard a reasonable explanation for Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. What if Lazarus wasn’t really dead? What if he was Jewish and had simply done something to dishonor his family? Maybe he wasn’t actually dead, but his family considered him dead; he was dead as far as they were concerned. Even today, some Jews will even go to the lengths of having a funeral service of some sort for the family member who is now considered dead. What if all Jesus really did was tell this man, “Even though your own people consider you dead, God forgives you for your transgression and considers you alive.” What if Jesus didn’t raise a man from the dead literally, but simply change his status within his family and community, giving him the freedom to continue having a job, owning things, and just living out his life? I know this sucks the miracle right out of the story, but why won’t the Christians I talk with at least consider that this interpretation is a possibility?
Goose, what do you think about this one?
Dagny2
I just re-read the passage about Lazarus.
Well, it seems to me that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, physically. The passage mentions that the grave already had started to smell and that Lazarus came out covered in funeral “robes” (sorry don’t know english word) so i think that this passage is meant to be taken literally.
Deadly,
I agree with you re: spectacular claims. It’s like being in line at the supermarket reading the tabloid covers. There are those who fall for it and those who don’t. I’ve always felt kind of sorry for those who believe there’s really a half-boy, half-bat found in Guyana or wherever.
And, I’d take Dumbledore over God any day!
Dagny,
Great point about Lazarus! I admit I had never considered that possibility. I’m thinking that many of these “miracles” attributed to Jesus were inserted after the actual gospels were written, to give more credence to the divinity theory – like taking the pains to emphasize that Lazarus was a smelly, 4-day-old corpse that was already beginning to decompose: “by this time he stinketh”, said Martha, sister of Lazarus. They had to be convincing, didn’t they? The Christians you talk with probably think it’s blasphemous to try to explain the “miracles” rationally. The “miracles” are one of the things they get hung up on when trying to prove Jesus’ divinity. I think the “miracles” of Jesus are an important cornerstone within their belief system and that’s why they can become so sensitive about it. I’ve had the same problem when in discussion with Christians before. They usually end up getting angry.
Goose,
You have no idea how relieved I am that you said you are not as naive as you seem. I was beginning to worry about you!
Peach63
“I’m thinking that many of these “miracles” attributed to Jesus were inserted after the actual gospels were written, to give more credence to the divinity theory”
So, as you are “thinking” that these miracles were inserted (in other words, seeing it possible?) you are also seeing it as possible that they weren’t and therefore are true accounts?
Why did the disciples risk family, life and limb for something they knew was a lie? Talking about the ressurrection of Jesus now, not Lazarus.
Peach63
“Goose,
”
You have no idea how relieved I am that you said you are not as naive as you seem. I was beginning to worry about you!
Ok. But, since i don’t presuppose that there is no God i remain open (freethinker;)) and consider it possible that God has raised people from the dead in this day and age.
Goose:
Oh, please stop w/the argument from martyrdom.
You have absolutely no real proof of any of that.
Please re-read that & tell me what’s wrong w/it.
Reluctant
“Oh, please stop w/the argument from martyrdom.
You have absolutely no real proof of any of that.”
It is not an argument from martyrdom in the traditional sense. People might be willing to die for what they believe to be true, not for what they know is a lie.
“Please re-read that & tell me what’s wrong w/it. “
I can’t find anything wrong with it. I am saying that i consider it possible that God raises people from the dead, i don’t automatically assume that it’s bogus.
Do you?
On the other hand, i have no proof. Only traditions. But we can say this much, by witnessing about the risen Saviour they risked losing their families and friends and made enemines of the environment they lived in (Jews and romans)which in turn measn they risked life and limb.
For a belief? Yes, maybe. For a lie, no.
Goose,
You are really splitting hairs on this. You’re hung up on this martyrdom thing. It is a common argument used by Christian apologists, and is not valid.
Look up Joseph Smith/Church of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). Most non-Mormons think his story was a lie, yet he and his followers risked life and limb for it. He was eventually murdered, as were many of his followers.
Peach:
Or the Manichees, for that matter. Or the feudal Japanese, who were trained from birth to commit seppuku on the order of their obayun or daimyo. Or the Kamikazees.
History is rife w/these examples.
reluctant,
Exactly. But Goose can’t or won’t see it.
I give up.
Reluctant, Peach63
I don’t see how i am splitting hairs. If somebody makes you believe something, and you think it is correct then i can understand if you are willing to die for it. Like the suicide bombers for example.
But if you know it is a lie, would you still die for it. Would you die for your testimonies of the flying spaghetti monster?
But, forget it.
Anyway, i can’t compare the Manichees and Mormonism to Christianity. I think Joseph Smith and the prophet Mani stayed in their graves.
Goose:
You are joking, right? You know that’s a satire, right?
I’m pretty sure EVERYONE’S stayed in their graves, since day 1.
RA
Yes, i know the spaghetti monster is a satire. I just wanted to say that dying for something you have made up would be pointless.
Then is pointless dying for Jesus
. But you say his followers did die for him, that doesn’t prove nothing, if that ever happened, and you can’t know for sure if that ever happened, and you don’t have real proofs that ever happened. I wonder why I’m not a believer.
“Ok. But, since i don’t presuppose that there is no God i remain open (freethinker;))…”
And you said you can’t find the incongruity in that, wow.
Goose:
Was doing a little looking up on xtian persecution (very interesting: bears out most of what I was saying).
THIS will make for some interesting reading.
Began looking up Islamophobia (yeesh, they got a term for EVERYTHING these days), looked this up:
http://www.answers.com/topic/persecution-of-muslims?hl=muslim&hl=persecution
Mind boggling.
If we’re to employ your logic, the argument from martyrdom, well, Islam’s far more recent.
Unless you want to employ an argument from antiquity vs. an argumentum ad novitatem?
Whaddya say?
Reluctant
The Moslems who were persecuted, what did they claim to have seen? It doesn’t say anywhere.
Xytras
Proof of what? Of Jesus dying on the cross and rising from the dead? No i haven’t got proof but the evidence suggests that He did. I haven’t heard a reasonable explanation why he shouldn’t have.
Goose:
“Blessed are those who have not seen, and believe.”
Nice diversionary effort. No cigar. The point being, that we have 4 dissimilar accounts, Luke & Acts are spotted w/dissimilarities (written by the same guy, no less), no evidence, no external multiple attestations, etc, you know the drill. Have you checked? Have you researched? Naw.
& all the xtians since then have given their lives for their belief, just as muslims have done the same. Or the Hebrews.
Your argument from martyrdom rests on 4 disparate accounts. Finally written down in the 2nd CE, no less. So many forgeries in just the 1st 2 centuries alone, they had to set up a committee & vote on it.
Face facts, dude. It’s an argument from warm fuzzy feelings.
It helps you thru the day, & holds the shadows at bay, that’s fine.
But there’s little logic to back it.
“Blessed are those who have not seen, and believe.”
Yes, but why on earth claim that Jesus had risen if it meant risking life and limb and making enemies of both the Jews and the romans? Logically, something happened. Since no one has refuted it we can assume that Jesus rose form the dead. Logically.
Luke & Acts are spotted w/dissimilarities (written by the same guy, no less), no evidence, no external multiple attestations, etc, you know the drill. Have you checked? Have you researched?
Of course there are dissimilarities in the gospels, they were after all written by men. No evidence? The gospels are evidence in and of themselves. They are historically and archeologically correct and have been copied with 99,5% accuracy for almost 2000 years. Why do you think they aren’t true eyewitness accounts?
Ok, we can choose to believe/disbelieve the writings of Josephus Flavius. Anyhow, it is quite reasonable to think that Jesus would leave no trace in secular history. After all, would you have written about him if you had been a historian that day and age?
Goose:
Conveying a fantastic message attracts the gullible and skeptical alike. It puts the messenger in the spotlight, which is an arena for which many people strive. It’s a gamble. Increased attention brings increased danger, but also increased possibilities and rewards.
Pure speculation. Logically, someone made a claim that attracted a critical mass. Whether there is any substance tothe claim is unknown (and probably unknowable)
This is a logical fally of argumentum ad ignoratum. No-one has refuted that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has risen from the dead either. Do you also assume this to be fact? Many people have claimed the resurection did not happen. It is however difficult to empirically refute something for which there is no proof, and no evidence other than heresay.
Something on wich we agree.
No – they are heresay.
How can self contradictory accounts be “historically and archeologically correct”? And even if this were the case, so what? Harry Potter and thousands of works of fiction can be said to be “historically and archeologically correct”. It does not lend any credence to their fantasies and fantastic claims – and neither do theistic holy books. As for the 99.5% claim, on what authority do you state this figure? How is it possible to know when one has no idea what the original books said? And even if it were true, how critical might be the .5% that is not an accurate copy? I know that if I write a copy of a computer program with 99.5% accuracy, the computer will refuse to run because the .5% is critical to the integrity of the whole message.
For the simple reason that they lack credibility and require a suspension of critical analysis to swallow.
I contend that belief is not a choice, but a measure of how honestly we search, analyse and interpret facts and arguments. If we “choose” to believe a fantasy we are likely experiencing confirmation bias. Anyhow, it is quite reasonable to think that Jesus would leave no trace in secular history. Especially if he never existed, did not do the things later attibuted to him, or was just one unremarkable phrophet indistinguishable from a myriad of his contemporaries. After all, would you have written about him if you had been a historian that day and age? If the acts accredited to him were verifiable, or even well known I think I would have written something. Absolutely, yes.
Goose:
Oh, dude, what’s Greek for ‘Bad News’?
If perchance you’re referring to the paragraph(s) that state ‘He was the Christ’, that was interpolated by Eusebius (of caesaeria?)of the 4th CE, as early church fathers (Origen, Martyr, etc.) made no use of the extraction referred to prior to the 4th CE.
Do some homework, please. Stop excepting everything that seems to agree w/what you think.
Some dissimilarities are excusable. But a large bulk casts doubt on their veracity. Wonder how that’d go in court. Not very well, I gather.
I for 1 would raise an eyebrow, if someone uncovered say, a Roman account from 1 of the guards at the tomb. That would raise an eyebrow or 2.
Reluctant
“Conveying a fantastic message attracts the gullible and skeptical alike.”
Not a very good theory. Yery bad reason for risking life and limb and family. Still no credible reason for doing it
“It puts the messenger in the spotlight, which is an arena for which many people strive. It’s a gamble. Increased attention brings increased danger, but also increased possibilities and rewards.”
No it put Jesus in the spotlight. With no rewards for the messenger except risking life, limb and family.
“Pure speculation. Logically, someone made a claim that attracted a critical mass.”
Logically, they mad a claim that made enemies of the world around them.
“No-one has refuted that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has risen from the dead either.”
No one has claimed he has.
“no proof, and no evidence other than heresay.”
The gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts. How do you know they are heresay?
How can self contradictory accounts be “historically and archeologically correct”?”
The gospels are correct in naming places, events and persons. Excavations and discoveries verify that.
“And even if this were the case, so what? Harry Potter and thousands of works of fiction can be said to be “historically and archeologically correct”.”
These works don’t make any significant claims do they?
“As for the 99.5% claim, on what authority do you state this figure?”
I’ve read it in several places. Look on the web, you can certaninly find sites covering the biblical manuscripts.
“And even if it were true, how critical might be the .5% that is not an accurate copy?”
the .05% is the discrepancy between the earliest found document and the oldest greek document. The 0.05% is made up of different order of words, misspellings etc. that doesnt change doctrine.
“Why do you think they aren’t true eyewitness accounts?
For the simple reason that they lack credibility and require a suspension of critical analysis to swallow.”
Lack credibility? How do you assess credibility?
“I think I would have written something. Absolutely, yes.”
Ok, imagine one of your friends become saved and tells you of all the great things Jesus has done in his life. Would you write about Jesus’ great deeds in this persons life in your memoirs?
Goose:
I think you confused me w/HeathenZ.
D’oh!
Goose:
LOL.. Someone read what somone copied what someone wrote what someone said what someone did. Pretty obvious really.
As for the rest of your post, I’ll take it on later if I get the time.
RA,
Goose sure did confuse that, but the post was stil 99.5% correct (and .05% incorrect).
Of course we have no idea what happened to the other .45%
HeatheNZ
Thanks for the belly laugh! Don’t know why, but I just found this hysterical. Your delivery just slays me sometimes.
HZ:
Ended up at Nag Hammadi, would be my guess.
Goose:
No rewards? What about eternal bliss?
Likewise, how do you know they’re eyewitness accounts? Being written in the 3rd person makes any such claim sketchy at best.
Not HZ’s point at all.
Dickensian works stipulate places, events, people of that era. So do Tolstoy’s. Still fiction.
There are 11,000 copies of the Koran in a library in Iran. If they were w/in the .05% category that you claim, should I then become a muslim?
That you even have to ASK that question detracts from your argument.
Historical background of said ‘eyewitnesses’, prior or post-resurrection. External, multiple corroborations of said miracles (still haven’t heard your version of the ‘darkness spread over the whole land’ theory, that NO OTHER civilization reports outside the gospels). Character witnesses.
If I were the supreme deity, here’s this watershed event targeting the entirety of humanity’s salvation, I would sure as HELL have accurate documentation, you betcha.
Otherwise, souls are gonna fall thru the cracks of the bureaucracy.
Reluctant
“No rewards? What about eternal bliss?”
No if He stayed in his grave and remained dead. Then it would have been obvious, a mere mortal man.
The Jews would only have had to produce a body.
“Likewise, how do you know they’re eyewitness accounts? Being written in the 3rd person makes any such claim sketchy at best.”
I said i find it reasonable to believe they are (whether i know or not, by supernatural and spiritual means, is another question). I believe because of the fact that they are historically and archeaologically correct. No one mentions the attack on jerusalem by the romans in 70. That had evidently not happened yet so the story must have been recorded earlier. Maybe the writer wrote on behalf of some other person who verbally told the story, that doesn’t matter, the story seems to be correct. The disciples reactions after the resurrection. That they meade such an effort of spreading the news. And again, no writings that refute the happenings. One would assume that such would be made.
“Not HZ’s point at all.
Dickensian works stipulate places, events, people of that era. So do Tolstoy’s. Still fiction.”
I am afaid i don’t get the point.
“There are 11,000 copies of the Koran in a library in Iran. If they were w/in the .05% category that you claim, should I then become a muslim?”
No please dont. Mohammed stayed in his grave and remained dead.
“Historical background of said ‘eyewitnesses’, prior or post-resurrection. External, multiple corroborations of said miracles (still haven’t heard your version of the ‘darkness spread over the whole land’ theory, that NO OTHER civilization reports outside the gospels). Character witnesses.”
Please proved some links if you have time.
Seriously, would you believe even if there were no dissimilarities?
Goose
So, if we tear open the graves of Christians everywhere, we will find no bodies? They will have ascended?
After 3 days? Or is that just the Man of God Speed?
Goose:
You missed my point entirely, THEY were promised eternal bliss. The fellows who were martyred.
Hmmm. Historically? Archeologically? Last I checked, no 1 could agree on the tomb location. Unless that’s changed recently? The historicity of the documents provide internal pointers that Mark came 1st, Matthew & Luke copied from it, in the 2nd CE. There’s bound to be SOME historicity involved. As to finding towns, items mentioned, we have Josephus not listing Nazareth (even though he lived approx. a mile away from it, in Japha) in his alleged ‘travelogue’. We have no account from Philo Judaeus. We have brief mentions in the Talmud itself, the Palistinean & Babylonian Gematria (sp? think I got that word wrong), dated 100 BCE & 100 CE respectively.
Still no external attestations.
- Sigh – the point being, is that said works of fiction contain historical landmarks, events, etc.
Likewise, JC.
Waitaminnit. Not gonna do that. If you’re really interested, check out my website, under ‘McDowell’s Chestnuts Roasting on an open fire’, under the ‘Historical Veracity of Jesus’. Plenty of source links there.
Reluctant
“You missed my point entirely, THEY were promised eternal bliss. The fellows who were martyred.”
Yes, but had Jesus staid in his grave it would have been obvious he was a mere mortal. His promises of eternal bliss would have stayed in the grave with him. In this case, the martyrs would have died for something they knew was a lie (claiming He had risen.)
“As to finding towns, items mentioned, we have Josephus not listing Nazareth (even though he lived approx. a mile away from it, in Japha) in his alleged ‘travelogue’.”
Argument from silence? Not very good
“We have no account from Philo Judaeus. We have brief mentions in the Talmud itself, the Palistinean & Babylonian Gematria (sp? think I got that word wrong), dated 100 BCE & 100 CE respectively.
Still no external attestations.”
About what? Jesus or Nazareth? Or smth else? If we’re talking Nazareth i recently read something about excavations there. We can examine this more thouroughly if you want. As for Jesus, well Flavius mentions Christ and some other historian mentions the early christians and their faith.
On the other hand, i find it very reasonable to think that secular historians would want to deny the happenings of the gospels (or not mention them). Maybe they also thougt that the fuss would die a natural death… it is just as likely that secular historians would write about Jesus as it is that you would write about his fantastic deeds.
The gospels mention places, events and people that existed during the time and that have been verified quite recently. In this sense they are correct.
“- Sigh – the point being, is that said works of fiction contain historical landmarks, events, etc.”
And what is the point of these works of fiction?
“Likewise, JC.”
How can you be sure? Or do you take it on faith?;)
Goose:
Sorry, been distracted.
And yet our species is notorious for seeing what we want to see, regardless of the truth of it.
Ha! Touche! You’ve picked up a thing or 2, I see.
Ah, but you see, Nazareth was a necropolis for Japha, the very place I mentioned Josephus staying at for some time. A few trinkets were unearthed, but it was common coin in that era to build a new settlement on the bones of an old one.
The former. Sorry.
That’s right, but until the dust clears, sorry, gonna have to omit that. Scholars are STILL debating over this bloody paragraph(s).
Interesting. Argument from censorship, which leads to another argument from silence.
Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory. Not accusing, observing.
Come now, don’t be coy. You know exactly what the point was.
Finding historical items doesn’t render the document completely historical.
Cute.
No, I take it from an argument from silence (hehehehehe).
No smoking gun. corpus delicti (hoping I’m using that right): body of the crime.
Don’t get hung up on the word ‘crime’.
Go ahead & look that up, & get back to me.
I’m sure Darrow will correct me if it’s not a proper analogy.
Reluctant
“And yet our species is notorious for seeing what we want to see, regardless of the truth of it.”
Our species are also known for not dying for nothing and struggling desperately to stay alive. Especially when there is no reward.
There was absolutely no motive for running around and lying about the resurrection.
Eternal bliss? What makes you think they thought they’d recieve eternal bliss for lying about Jesus rising from the dead?
Do you find it reasonable?
“Ah, but you see, Nazareth was a necropolis for Japha, the very place I mentioned Josephus staying at for some time. A few trinkets were unearthed, but it was common coin in that era to build a new settlement on the bones of an old one.”
Well i seem to find sources that claim Nazareth existed. Anyhow, lets skip the evidences.
Think about this: Betlehem existed, Kafarnaum existed, galilee existed, “oil mountain” (laugh all you want i don’t know the english translations for these places) you get the point. Why shouldnt’ Nazareth had existed?
The early christians spoke about Jesus from Nazareth. So you mean people claimed Jesus came from a village that they knew didn’t exist? That is completely self-defeating.
Do you find it reasonable?
“That’s right, but until the dust clears, sorry, gonna have to omit that. Scholars are STILL debating over this bloody paragraph(s).”
ok. So “until the dust settles”… you mean if scholars accept it in the future you will too?
“Interesting. Argument from censorship, which leads to another argument from silence.
Sounds suspiciously like a conspiracy theory. Not accusing, observing.”
Again. Imagine yourself as a historian. Jesus came along, and you would have to accept him as your Lord.
The gospel wasn’t easier to accept then than it is today.
“Come now, don’t be coy. You know exactly what the point was.
Finding historical items doesn’t render the document completely historical.”
yeah. But the gospels make claims, other works of fiction don’t.
“Cute.
No, I take it from an argument from silence (hehehehehe).”
Pardon? I don’t follow now. The silence is from the other side of the fence… i would think. I’m no master debater however.
“No smoking gun. corpus delicti (hoping I’m using that right): body of the crime.
Don’t get hung up on the word ‘crime’.”
Excactly. No body of the crime. Which was the only thing the jews had had to produce in order to silence the Jesus freaks.
Goose:
The only true comment in all of that is ‘no reward.’
There was also no motive for castrating oneself & committing suicide like Heaven’s Gate. Or mass suicide at the Jones compound.
That’s just a ridiculous & stupid statement. They didn’t think they were lying.
This grows wearisome. You’re presuming to know the details, the psychological make-up of people whose existences were never proved outside the alleged gospels.
Yes, since they seem to be terribly inconvenient for you.
Accept which 1? The interpolation, or the original?
I’ve explained this amply. It’s an interpolation. Your side of the fence still contends this nonsense.
Too bad no such thing happened. Unless you mean Luke. Luke was a physician, remember? If he ever existed.
Luke begins w/speaking to Theophilus. Only known xtian in literature doesn’t come along till 2nd CE.
Seeing as how it was written in the 2nd CE, among a mostly illiterate population, rife w/all SORTS of aspiring prophets, superstitions run rampant?
Don’t make me laugh.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Book of Mormon? Koran? Iliad? Odessey?
Any of those ring a bell?
All fiction. Including the bibile.
Think about it.
You’re honest.
Oh, please. The only record of this sort of thing is in the ‘gospels’. Still no external outside attestation. No Roman records.
Are we going to do the ‘censorship’ conspiracy again?
Reluctant
“The only true comment in all of that is ‘no reward.’”
What? You mean people happily die for no reason? Please explain…
“There was also no motive for castrating oneself & committing suicide like Heaven’s Gate. Or mass suicide at the Jones compound.”
Yes there were. Promises of eternal bliss.
“That’s just a ridiculous & stupid statement. They didn’t think they were lying.”
How could they not? They claimed to see something they hadn’t.
“This grows wearisome. You’re presuming to know the details, the psychological make-up of people whose existences were never proved outside the alleged gospels.”
Very wearysome. Are you saying that they had been hypnotized (or smth) similar into believing that the resurrection had happened? If you sincerely believe that they had been manipulated into believing that the resurrection had happened please explain why you think so and the methods you think were used into making the disciples believe it.
“Yes, since they seem to be terribly inconvenient for you.”
No they don’t seem inconvenient. It’s just that i seem to find sources claiming Nazareth existed. It’s like debating evolution, there’s no end to it.
Thats why i am asking you your theories about how the term Jesus of Nazareth came about. A self-defeating statement.
“Seeing as how it was written in the 2nd CE, among a mostly illiterate population, rife w/all SORTS of aspiring prophets, superstitions run rampant?
Don’t make me laugh.”
Seeing as it asks man to deny himself, accept his sinfulness, repent from it and accept Jesus as Lord it wasn’t. The nature of man hasn’t changed.
“HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Book of Mormon? Koran? Iliad? Odessey?
Any of those ring a bell?
All fiction. Including the bibile.”
Yet none of these works are able to back up their claims like Jesus.
“Think about it.”
I am. No writings from the time that that claim everything is bull.
“You’re honest.”
Thank you.
“Oh, please. The only record of this sort of thing is in the ‘gospels’. Still no external outside attestation. No Roman records.
Are we going to do the ‘censorship’ conspiracy again?”
And why cant the gospels be telling the truth? Please answer this
Why do you think that they are worthless as evidence in and of themselves?
Goose:
No, I meant that people normally do things for some sort of reward, material or otherwise.
That was sarcasm.
Reexamine that sentence.
I don’t think any of it really happened, so such speculation is bootless.
& I keep finding sources that vary on the topic, from a Japhan necropolis to Dowager Helena searching for it in the 4th CE. Your sources are…? Of course, vested ones.
Well for 1, there was a misinterpretation by ‘Matthew’ that he would be a ‘nazarene’, when in fact, the only allusion close to it is in reference to Samson, in Judges. The word ‘Notsir’ (sp?), which is translated roughly to ‘branch’. A ‘Notsirite’, if you will.
Oh, this old trail. Not too crazy about a deity who deliberately set up his kids to take a fall, based on a hard-coded flaw, & blames the kids for their own flaws.
If you can’t see the inherent cruelty in all that, then I give up.
I don’t know if that’s a stronger argument for your side or mine. I think mine.
Since it wasn’t written in that time frame, no surprise there.
The word of a bunch of iron age stoners w/psychopathic tendencies? I’ve repeated my points endless times on this.
It’s a wild story, poorly edited, w/no historical validity.
Reluctant
“No, I meant that people normally do things for some sort of reward, material or otherwise.”
Excactly. But since there was no reward (except negative ones) for claiming the resurrection happened something else had to be the driving factor. Something very sensational.
“That was sarcasm.”
Maybe. But that were the rewards in Heavens gate and other cults.
“Reexamine that sentence.”
Well according to you they claimed to see something they hadn’t. Which menas they knew they were lying.
“I don’t think any of it really happened, so such speculation is bootless.”
Ok, by saying you think it didn’t happen you also say that it’s possible it happened. You just don’t think so.
“Well for 1, there was a misinterpretation by ‘Matthew’ that he would be a ‘nazarene’, when in fact, the only allusion close to it is in reference to Samson, in Judges. The word ‘Notsir’ (sp?), which is translated roughly to ‘branch’. A ‘Notsirite’, if you will. “
Ok. will look that up.
“Oh, this old trail. Not too crazy about a deity who deliberately set up his kids to take a fall, based on a hard-coded flaw, & blames the kids for their own flaws.
If you can’t see the inherent cruelty in all that, then I give up.”
Our highly personal feelings don’t determine if something is true or not.
“I don’t know if that’s a stronger argument for your side or mine. I think mine.”
Depends on how you look at it. I am just saying that people weren’t more accepting of the gospel then than they are now. So
“Since it wasn’t written in that time frame, no surprise there.”
They seem to be written before the year 70.
“The word of a bunch of iron age stoners w/psychopathic tendencies?”
A personal opinion. Not a very good reason though.
“It’s a wild story, poorly edited, w/no historical validity. “
Thinking it’s a wild story that’s poorly edited has nothing to do with if its true or not though.
Goose:
Back to square 1. They thought they’d be saved, eternal bliss.
See preceding commentary.
Literally. Re-EXAMINE that sentence.
They claimed to see something they hadn’t.
You just shot yourself in the foot.
You really do need to re-read your posts before clicking the Send Comment button. Carefully.
I don’t think it happened. Period.
& you know this is my ‘highly personal feelings’ how, exactly?
Since it didn’t exist in the 1st CE, kinda hard, ain’t it?
Nope.
Well, since the ME is 1 of the chief exporters of opium, hashish, & others, St. John was purported to be under the influence of wormwood when he wrote Revelation, & pathology is a distinct marker for logic & truthful proclivity, it’s a strong argument.
Oh, wow, use THAT in a court of law. I dare ya. I double-dare ya!
Goose:
“Back to square 1. They thought they’d be saved, eternal bliss.”
This is going in total circles…
What du you base that on? What makes you think they’d be saved or recieve eternal bliss for lying?
Then you say they didn’t know they were lying. Well IF they hadn’t seen a resurrected Christ they knew they were lying.
Then you say they saw what they wanted to see. Well they had to be very good at lying to themselves in order to just make something up and then facing every hardship possible just to claim it.
Then you say Heavens gate etc. were good at lying to themselves. No, this Applegate guy was good at lying to other people. Big difference.
“Literally. Re-EXAMINE that sentence.
They claimed to see something they hadn’t.
You just shot yourself in the foot.”
According to your theories they claimed to see something they hadn’t. I meant that all along.
“I don’t think it happened. Period.”
I am saying you don’t know it didnt’ happen thats all…
“& you know this is my ‘highly personal feelings’ how, exactly?”
you told me that you thought the essence of the gospel was cruel. Isn’t that a personal feeling?
“Well, since the ME is 1 of the chief exporters of opium, hashish, & others, St. John was purported to be under the influence of wormwood when he wrote Revelation, & pathology is a distinct marker for logic & truthful proclivity, it’s a strong argument. “
What do you base that on? That he was under the influence of wormwood?
“Thinking it’s a wild story that’s poorly edited has nothing to do with if its true or not though.
Oh, wow, use THAT in a court of law. I dare ya. I double-dare ya!”
So the fact that you think, a personal opinion, its a wild story automatically makees it false?
Goose:
Already answered that one.
I really don’t support many of your presuppositions. Ain’t enough proof to speculate.
People ARE very good at lying to themselves. Believe it. Human nature.
I know. Was being nice about it.
No, I don’t know it didn’t happen. I don’t think it did.
Probably. ‘The thing speaks for itself’ comes to mind, also.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/666_the_number_of_the_beast.htm
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Oh, while we’re at it, check under the title – “Authorship, Audience, and Date” at -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_revelations
Well, it’s a personal opinion I share w/a large amount of people. I certainly didn’t come up w/it on my own.
If I hadn’t done the research, I’d probably be just like you.
A believer.
Reluctant
Ok, sorry if i keep this going.. i find it really interesting and challenging.
“Already answered that one.”
Ok. I don’t think so but let’s drop this one
“I really don’t support many of your presuppositions. Ain’t enough proof to speculate.”
You pressuppose that JC stayed in his grave and build speculation around that…that the disciples obviously lied to themselves etc.
There is definitely enough evidence to speculate… in fact theres just so much evidence that one can excercise free will and choose to believe/disbelieve, isn’t there?
“People ARE very good at lying to themselves. Believe it. Human nature.”
Give an example similar to the one concerning the resurrection.
“Probably. ‘The thing speaks for itself’ comes to mind, also.”
Another personal opinion.
“http://www.thenazareneway.com/666_the_number_of_the_beast.htm
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Oh, while we’re at it, check under the title – “Authorship, Audience, and Date” at -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_revelations“
All i got here was different interpretations of the book of revelations. What’s special about that?
And your assumption that John was under influence of wormwood seems to be based upon another persons assumption that he was under the influence… but if you choose to believe that ok.
“Well, it’s a personal opinion I share w/a large amount of people. I certainly didn’t come up w/it on my own.
If I hadn’t done the research, I’d probably be just like you.
A believer. “
Ok. Let’s see. So far we have come up with different theories that at best should make us prudent when accepting things that are said to be eyewitness accounts. These theories and alternative explanations may or may not be true.
But they don’t contradict the happenings in the gospels. So far nothing that contradicts the gospels seems to have been unearthed.
You say the gospels didn’t exist until the 100’s. Some scholars (when i browse the internet anyway) seem to say that they existed before the 70’s. Anyway, who says they couldn’t exist orally transmitted before that?