Sauron

This is nonsense.

In the first place, and as Michael has pointed out, Dennis never said that 1st century people were especially credulous. The inclusion of teh comment about the "$2.99 psychic hotline" is sufficient to indicate that he wasn't singling out 1st century people as being credulous. You missed that point two or three times in your lame responses, Nomad.

In the 2nd place, there is no need for any group of people to be "uniquely credulous". In a historical period where visions and dreams were granted to be valid sources of divine information, such a dream or vision about a resurrection would not be out of place at all.

In the 3rd place, what "uniquely extraordinary event" are you referring to? Someone seeing a vision, or having a dream? That is not unique, or extraordinary, in the historical context that Dennis has framed the question. Consequently, no need to appeal to a "unique credulity".

And finally, Dennis' point remains. He used this statement about 1st century people to buttress an original argument. You have not been able to assail that statement. Therefore, the point Dennis was originally making still stands - unaddressed by you, I might add.

Nomad

Hello Earl

You are still not getting the point of this discussion, so let's try one more time.

Just a quick note to point out the obvious, but this is a strawman Earl. I have not made this argument, so do not attribute it to me, and in this thread I have already conceeded, for the sake of discussion that the Resurrection accounts of the Gospels and Paul's letters are not true.

This leaves the question as to how Christianity came into existence (a basic historical fact) c. 30-35AD, and why it achieved such extraordinary success in such a short period of time (less than 300 years). Thus, we have two historical facts, and I am trying to determine what sceptics think happened, and how well their theories hold up under scrutiny. This is known as hypothesis testing.

So, one last time, if you do not have a theory as to what happened, this is cool. I am only interested in talking with those that did. That said, I am not interested in listening to mere assertions, as this is mere opinion offering without evidence, and is simply boring.

And if I were trying to prove the historicity of the Resurrection, you would be correct in your statement. As I have already said the Resurrection did not happen, why would I bear any kind of burden of proof? I am seeking to test theories and hypothesis of what happened that produced known historical events.

I hope this clears up your confusion Earl.

Nomad

Nomad

Now I will make the same point to you that I just made to Earl (in case you did not read my response).

I am not arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection accounts found in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter. This thread is premised on these accounts being false. What I am looking for are hypothesis and theories from sceptics that have one as to how Christianity came to take over the Roman Empire within 300 years of its creation. Additionally, I am not interested in mere assertions like "GJohn was not written by an eye witness". If you believe this (as both you and Dennis have said), then offer your evidence and arguments. I think GJohn was authored by an eye witness, but we can hardly have a discussion if all you will do is assert he did not. The Gospel of John makes the claim that it is from an eye witness. You reject this. Tell me why, don't just tell me you don't believe it (and no, you do not have to tell me who actually wrote it, only your reasons for rejecting eye witness authorship).

To be candid, as we have seen from Earl's post, it doesn't really matter if there was an eye witness, 500 eye witnesses, or none. A sceptic can still remain sceptical in any case. But if you wish to assert something (like no eye witnesses wrote about their experiences), at least be willing to offer reasons for your beliefs. I do not think that this is asking too much on a discussion forum.

Alright, now for those of you that do not have a hypothesis as to what happened, and how Christianity came to be born and succeed as it did, thank you for your interest in this thread, but I really am looking for those that are willing to put some ideas out there to be examined.

Thank you again,

Nomad

Vorkosigan

Alright, now for those of you that do not have a hypothesis as to what happened, and how Christianity came to be born and succeed as it did, thank you for your interest in this thread, but I really am looking for those that are willing to put some ideas out there to be examined.

Nomad, we've put out ideas a hundred times. There's nothing different about the spread of Christianity from the spread of any other religion, except perhaps that Christianity was the first of the major missionary religions to be violently intolerant of other religions. Which helps explain a lot of its "success," if that's what you want to call 2000 years of bloodshed.

Nor is its appearance very interesting. An itinerant preacher or revolutionary sparks a religious movement. It's happened a thousand times in history, and will happen a thousand more. Ecclesiastes was right, you know.

We've had several threads like this in the past. Why don't you revisit some of them?

Michael

Nomad

Hi Michael

Thank you for getting my point.

Be well,

Nomad

Toto

John as written by an eyewitness was discussed in <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000653&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a> from June 2001. James Still presents some cogent reasons why the fourth Gospel was not written by John, and was not written by an eyewitness, even though he gives some credence to a claim that a similar document was written by an eyewitness. The thread is still open and contains some interesting discussion.

But Nomad is (as usual) being disingenuous when he claims that he is assuming the accounts of the resurrection are false, and looking for a secular explanation. He is only assuming that the resurrection did not happen so that he can show there is no other explanation for the rise of Christianity. This means that he has made his mind up ahead of time that no explanation will satisfy him, however historically valid it might be, and he will proclaim this as more proof of the validity of Christianity. Certainly we have seen many explanations of the rise of Christianity that satisfy most historians, and do not require a physical resurrection or even the existence of Jesus.

I for one do not need to <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> any more. If anyone besides Nomad thinks that there is something left to discuss, please speak up now.

Kosh

Just one thing

&lt;Jokers voice&gt; Where do you get those
marvelous icons?

Toto

Bill added them to the "Instant Graemlins" section. Click on "Reply", scroll down a little bit and look to your left.

I <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> to Bill for all his work here.

Vorkosigan

I have a web page of them at <a href="http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/icons/iconlist.html" target="_blank">http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/icons/iconlist.html</a>

I got a lot from Helen, and some from Balthaazaq

Michael

Vorkosigan

I am not arguing for the historicity of the Resurrection accounts found in the Bible, or anywhere else for that matter. This thread is premised on these accounts being false. What I am looking for are hypothesis and theories from sceptics that have one as to how Christianity came to take over the Roman Empire within 300 years of its creation.

The reason no one can answer you is because -- as usual -- you have your history wrong. Pagan religions remained alive and well long in the Roman Empire until banned and violently suppressed much later. Christianity did not "take over" the Roman Empire in 300 years, it just took over the top crust and then got them to give the right orders. This is a strategy common to many religions, including missionary Hinduism in the Indonesian archipelago, missionary Islam in central asia, and missionary Buddhism in various parts of north, central and east asia.

It would be helpful if your question was clearer. Are you asking why Constantine "converted" to Christianity? Are you asking why the pagan religions disappeared? Are you asking about sociological, political and economic mechanisms? Are you claiming there is something special about Christianity as opposed to other missionary religions? You frequently ask this question, and never answer ours back: what is it that is so special about your superstition that demands a special answer others do not?

In other words, is there anything about the spread of Christianity that cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic framework? If so, what is it?

Additionally, I am not interested in mere assertions like "GJohn was not written by an eye witness". If you believe this (as both you and Dennis have said), then offer your evidence and arguments. I think GJohn was authored by an eye witness, but we can hardly have a discussion if all you will do is assert he did not.

You began by asserting that it was written by an eyewitness, I asserted that it was not. Null argument, nobody put up any evidence. Should we start a new thread?

The Gospel of John makes the claim that it is from an eye witness.

So do Lord of Light and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. The claim is meaningless.

You reject this. Tell me why, don't just tell me you don't believe it (and no, you do not have to tell me who actually wrote it, only your reasons for rejecting eye witness authorship).

Nutshell: it's theological fiction. Nobody can witness events that never occurred.

Michael